LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


• 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS, 


IN 


PUBLIC   AND   PRIVATE. 


WITH 


LETTERS  AND  SPEECHES, 


BEFORE,    DURING,    AND    SINCE    THE    WAR. 


BY 


HENRY    CLEVELAND. 


**Who  made  the  heart,  'tis  he  alone, 

Decidedly  can  try  us; 
He  knows  each  chord,  its  various  tone; 

Each  spring,  its  various  bias. 
Thence  at  the  balance  let's  be  mute, 

We  never  can  adjust  it; 
What's  done,  we  partly  may  compute ; 

But  know  not  what's  resisted." — BURNS  . 


NATIONAL    PUBLISHING-   COMPANY, 

PHILADELPHIA,     PA.;      RICHMOND,     VA. ;     ATLANTA,     GA.  ;     CINCINNATI,     OHIO 
ST.    LOUIS,  MO.  ;    CHICAGO,    ILL.  J    AND    NEW    ORLEANS,  LA. 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1866,  by 
J.    R.    JONES, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District 

of  Pennsylvania. 


S.   A.   GEORGE, 

STEBEOTYPER,  ELECTROTYPER,  AJTD  PRINTSB, 

121   N. SEVENTH   STREET, 

PHILADELPHIA, 


PREFACE. 

A  few  words,  and  a  few  only,  may  not  be  improper  by  way  of 
preface,  or  introduction  to  the  following  pages.  Mr.  Stephens 
has  for  a  long  time  filled  a  large  space  in  the  public  attention 
throughout  the  "United  States.  Taken  all  in  all — physically, 
morally,  and  intellectually — he  may  very  justly  be  regarded  as 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  this  country  and  age.  For 
a  quarter  of  a  century  he  has  been  an  active  participant,  and 
often  leader,  in  the  great  questions  of  war,  peace,  change,  and 
progress,  that  have  made  the  most  interesting  chapters  in  the 
history  of  the  western  world  ;  and  in  the  late  semi-decade  of  con 
flict  he  watched  the  shifting  of  the  mighty  scenes  from  the  high 
stand-point  of  the  second  office  in  the  southern  confederation. 

•It  is  but  fit  that  what  he  has  said  and  done  in  all  this  eventful 
period  should  be  preserved  in  some  durable  form.  This  has 
been  the  principal  object  of  the  writer ;  and  in  the  execution  of 
his  purpose  perfect  accuracy  has  been  his  controlling  motive. 
With  this  view  he  has  communicated  his  design  to  Mr.  Stephens, 
(having  been  on  intimate  terms  of  friendship  with  him  for  years,) 
and  received  his  consent  to  the  undertaking.  During  the  late 
summer  (of  1866)  he  had  free  access  to  all  his  papers,  with  no 
restriction  upon  their  use,  save  in  questions  as  to  their  present 
interest  to  the  reader,  or  of  propriety  and  good  taste.  The  re 
sult  of  the  labor  of  compiling  and  arranging,  as  well  as 
biographical  description  and  sketching  of  interesting  incidents, 
is  respectfully  presented.  The  writer  only  hopes  to  receive  from 
the  wider  circle  of  the  American  public,  that  kind  indulgence  so 
generously  accorded  to  different  efforts  in  a  narrower  sphere. 
To  the  student  of  biography  the  private  life  of  this  great  and  good 
man  is  full  of  interest.  To  those  who  desire  to  know  their  country's 
true  history,  there  will  be  value  in  the  thoughts  and  words  of  one 
who  was  so  trusted  and  honored  by  the  southern  portion  of  the 

7 


8  PREFACE. 

late  contestants,  and  who  stood  for  the  Union  and  its  constitution 
amid  its  enemies  in  a  time  when  many  despaired  of  it  in  the  land 
of  its  friends. 

The  writer  has  submitted  to  Mr.  Stephens  the  result  of  his 
undertaking,  and,  as  part  of  this  preface,  subjoins  a  letter 
received  from  him  on  the  subject  of  the  present  publication. 
Should  the  effort  meet  with  favor,  the  credit  will  be  due  to  the 
subject ;  if  not,  the  writer  will  only  think  he  has  been  unfortu 
nate  in  his  manner  of  presenting  it. 

H.  C. 


CRAWFORDVILLB,  GA.,  IQth  Nov.,  1866. 

HENRY  CLEVELAND. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : — 

Your  letter  with  proof-sheets  of  your  forthcoming 
volume  has  been  received.  I  have  looked  over  the  latter,  and 
made  some  corrections  and  suggestions  which  you  will  notice. 
With  these  the  work  in  all  essential  facts  will  be,  I  think,  sub 
stantially  correct. 

I  have  not  had  time  to  examine  closely  the  speeches  taken 
from  the  Globe.  You  must  see  that  these  are  as  they  there 
appear.  All  the  others,  I  believe,  are  correct,  as  well  as  the 
letters  contained  in  the  book. 

I  have  no  objections  to  your  using  this  letter  as  you  may 
think  proper. 

With  best  wishes,  I  remain  as  ever, 

Yours  truly, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


GENERAL    CONTENTS. 


PREFACE 


BIOGEAPHIOAL   SKETCH. 

L— INTRODUCTORY. 

Home  scenes — Personal  appearance — Birth  and  lineage — Education 
and  early  manhood 17 

II.— SUCCESS  AND   RISE  IN   LIFE. 

Admission  to  the  Bar — Election  to  the  Legislature — Election  to 
Congress 43 

III.— POSITION  IN  RELATION  TO  POLITICAL  PARTIES. 

Always  States  Rights — Never  partisan — Against  the  policy  of  the 
Mexican  war  and  the  acquisition  of  any  territory  by  conquest — A 
Constitutional  Union  man  throughout 70 

IV.— REVIEW   OF  SPEECHES   AND   LETTERS. 

t 

Speech  against  acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico — Against  Clay 
ton  compromise — Personal  rencounter — Presidential  campaign  of 
1848— The  compromise  of  1850 — The  Georgia  platform— The 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill — Territorial  policy  in  regard  to  African 
slavery — Know-Nothingism — Admission  of  Minnesota  and  Oregon.  83 

V.— RETIREMENT  FROM  CONGRESS. 

Speech  at  Augusta,  July  2d,  1859 — Views  of  the  proper  relation 
between  the  white  and  black  races  at  the  South — Presidential 
canvass  of  1860 124 

(9) 


10  CONTENTS. 

YL— POSITION   ON   THE   QUESTION   OF   SECESSION. 

Speech  before  the  legislature  in  oposition  to  secession,  November 
14th,  1860 — Correspondence  with  Mr.  Lincoln — Speech  in  the 
secession  convention — Goes  as  delegate  to  Montgomery,  and  is 
elected  Vice-President  of  the  Confederate  States  organization 149 

VII.— VIEWS    OF   PUBLIC    POLICY   AND    COUKSE   DURING 

THE   WAR. 

Cotton  loan — Martial  law— Conscription — Impressments — Habeas 
Corpus  suspension — Efforts  for  peace — The  two  brothers — Hamp 
ton  Roads  conference 170 

VIII.— ARREST  AND    IMPRISONMENT. 

Release  on  parole — Election  to  United  States  Senate — Reconstruc 
tion  speech  before  the  legislature,  February  22d,  1866 — Testimony 
before  reconstruction  committee — Newspaper  comments 201 

IX.— CONCLUDING  REMARKS...  .   230 


SPEECHES,   LETTEKS,  ETC. 

Report  of  the  minority  of  the  c-ornmittee"  on  the  state  of  the  repub 
lic,  Georgia  Senate,  1842 245 

Speech  on  the  right  of  members  to  their  seats  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  February  9,  1844 259 

Speech  on  the  joint  resolution  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  deliv 
ered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  25,  1845 280 

Speech  on  the  subject  of  the  Mexican  war,  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  June  16,  1846 302 

Speech  on  the  Mexican  appropriation,  or  "three  million  bill,"  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union,  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  February  12,  1847 320 

Speech  on  the  territorial  bill  (Clayton's  compromise),  delivered  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  August  7,  1848 334 

Address  before  the  Maryland  Institute,  in  Baltimore,  February  23, 
1852,  in  commemoration  of  the  birth-day  of  Washington 352 

Address  before  the  Few  and  Phi  Gamma  societies  of  Emory  Col 
lege,  Oxford,  Georgia,  July  21, 1852 364 

Speech  on  the  bill  to  prevent  frauds  upon  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  in  defence  of  Mr.  Corwin,  and  the  Galphin  claim,  House  of 
Representatives,  January  13,  1853 376 


CONTENTS.  11 

Nebraska  and  Kansas  speech,  House  of  Representatives,  Febru 
ary  17,  1854 394 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  December  14, 
1854.  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Mace,  of  Indiana,  on  giving 
notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill  to  restore  the  Missouri 
compromise 416 

"  Georgia  and  Ohio  Again."  Speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Campbell,  of 
Ohio,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  January  15, 1855. .  432 

Letter  to  Judge  Thomas  W.  Thomas,  on  the  subject  of  the  Know- 
Nothing  party,  written,  Crawfordville,  Georgia,  May  9,  1855 459 

Speech  at  the  City  Hall,  Augusta,  Georgia,  announcing  himself  as  a 
candidate  for  re-election  to  Congress,  in  1855 472 

Debate  with  Mr.  Zollicoffer,  of  Tennessee,  on  the  power  of  Congress 
to  establish  or  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  House,  January 
17,1856.... 489 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House,  March  11,  1856,  on  the  Kansas  con 
tested  election 515 

Speech  on  the  bill  to  admit  Kansas  under  the  Kansas-Topeka  consti 
tution.  House,  June  28,  1856 531 

Speech  on  the  Presidential  election  of  1856,  the  compromise  of  1850, 
and  the  Kansas  act  of  1854.  House,  January  6,  1857 561 

Speech  on  the  admission  of  Minnesota  and  alien  suffrage,  House  of 
Representatives,  May  tl,  1858 580 

Impeachment  of  Judge  Watrous.  House  of  Representatives,  De 
cember  15,  1858. 591 

Letter  on  the  subject  of  the  Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad,  written 
March  13,  1857.  Number  one 605 

Letter  on  the  subject  of  the  Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad,  written 
March  17,  1857.  Number  two 611 

Speech  on  the  admission  of  Oregon,  House  of  Representatives,  Feb 
ruary  12,  1859 621 

Farewell  speech  on  retiring  from  Congress,  delivered  in  Augusta,  Ga., 

July  2,  1859 637 

Athens,  Georgia,  literary  speech,  in  August,  1859 651 

Letter  to  Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  Jan.  21,  1860 ....   656 
Letter  of  thirteen  gentlemen  of  Macon,  Georgia,  and  reply  of  Mr. 

Stephens,  May  9,  1860 661 

Letter  to  Dr.  Z.  P.  Landrum,  of  Lexington,  Georgia,  July  1,  I860..    668 
Union  speech  delivered  in  the  City  Hall  Park,  Augusta,  Georgia, 
September  1,  1860 674 


12  CONTENTS. 

Celebrated  speech,  delivered  in  opposition  to  secession,  before  the 
Georgia  Legislature,  November  14, 1860 694 

Rules  for  the  government  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  Montgomery, 
Alabama,  1861 713 

Speech  known  as  "  THE  CORNER  STONE,"  delivered  at  the  Athenaeum, 
Savannah,  Georgia,  March  21,  1861 717 

Speech  before  the  Virginia  State  Convention,  Richmond,  April  23, 
1861 , 729 

The  Convention  entered  into  between  the  State  of  Virginia  and  the 
Confederate  States 745 

Letter  on  Martial  Law,  to  the  Mayor  of  Atlanta,  Georgia,  Septem 
ber  8,  1862 747 

Substance  of  the  speech  on  the  "  Produce  Loan,"  Crawfordville,  No 
vember  1,  1862 749 

Speech  on  the  state  of  the  Confederacy,  before  the  Georgia  Legisla 
ture,  March  16,  1864  ... 761 

Letter  to  the  Hon.  James  A.  Seddon,  Secretary  of  War,  April  29, 
1864 786 

Letter  to  Senator  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  of  Georgia,  June  22, 1864. .  790 

Extract  of  a  letter  to  Alex.  J.  Marshall,  of  Virginia,  November  4, 
1864 796 

Address  before  the  Georgia  Legislature  on  the  Reconstruction  of  the 
Union,  February  22,  1866 804 

Testimony  before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  of  Congress,  April 
,     16,  1866 819 


INDEX   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PICTURE  OF  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS,  FROM  THE  IMPERIAL  PHOTO 
GRAPH  BY  BRADY,  TAKEN  AT  WASHINGTON  CITY,  MARCH,  1866.  Frontispiece. 


PICTURE  OF  "LIBERTY  HALL,"  THE  EESIDENCE  OF  ALEXANDER  H. 
STEPHENS,  AT  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA  ;  SOUTH-EAST  VIEW.  FROM 
A  PHOTOGRAPH  TAKEN  ON  THE  GROUNDS,  1866 23 

PICTURE  OF  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS,  AS  HE  APPEARED  DURING  THE 
DELIVERY  OF  HIS  GREAT  STATISTICAL  SPEECH,  "  GEORGIA  AND  OHIO 
AGAIN."  FROM  A  PHOTOGRAPH  BY  BRADY,  JANUARY,  1855 102 

THH  "OLD  HOMESTEAD  BURIAL  GROUND"  OF  THE  STEPHENS  FAMILY, 

NEAR   THE  SPOT  WHERE  MR.  STEPHENS  WAS  BORN.     FfiOM  A  PHOTO 
GRAPH  TAKEN  ON  THE  SPOT,  1866 232 

(13) 


INDEX    OF    AUTOGRAPH    LETTERS 


lithographed  in  Fac  Simile. 


LETTER  FROM  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  TO  MR.  STEPHENS,  SPRING 
FIELD,  ILLINOIS,  NOVEMBER  30ra,  1860 150  to  151 

REPLY   OF  ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS,    ORAWFORDVILLE,    GEORGIA, 

DECEMBER,  1860 .   150  to  151 


REJOINDER    OF    HON.    ABRAHAM    LINCOLN,    SPRINGFIELD,    ILLINOIS, 

DECEMBER  22o  I860..  .   150  to  151 


NOTE  FROM  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  TO  MR.  STEPHENS,  CONCERNING  HIS 
NEPHEW,  LIEUTENANT  JOHN  A.  STEPHENS,  WASHINGTON  CITY, 
FEBRUARY  IOTH,  1865 199 

(15) 


ALEXANDER  H,  STEPHENS. 


I. 
INTRODUCTORY. 

HOME   SCENES — PERSONAL   APPEARANCE — BIRTH  AND  LINEAGE 
— EDUCATION  AND   EARLY   MANHOOD. 

WE  desire  to  speak  of  this  distinguished  statesman,  as  he 
appears  in  public  and  private,  before,  during,  and  since  the  war. 

Having  determined  to  compile  some  of  the  speeches,  letters, 
and  papers  of  the  Georgian,  who  has  been  so  long  and  favora 
bly  known  to  the  American  public,  it  is  proper  to  give  a  more 
enlarged  sketch  than  has  ever  heretofore  been  given  of  some 
important  and  interesting  incidents  and  features  in  the  life  of 
the  author  of  them. 

Much  of  the  material  which  composes  the  body  of  this  volume 
has  never  before  appeared  in  print ;  some  has  only  been  seen 
by  those  to  whom  addressed,  and  none  has  ever  appeared  in 
book  form. 

Of  the  man  and  his  dwelling-place,  his  appearance,  his  earlier 
and  later  manhood,  his  private  existence  and  public  career, 
others  have  often  spoken;  but  generally  through  the  daily  or 
weekly  printed  leaves,  that  fall  from  the  press  as  fast  as  the 
autumnal  spoils  of  the  forests,  and  are  gone  as  soon.  Some  of 
the  best  and  most  accurate  of  these  have  not  been  widely  circu. 
lated,  and  few,  if  any  of  them,  are  now  accessible. 

Men  are  only  known  as  they  are  seen ;  and  as  clothing  modi 
fies  the  appearance  of  man  and  as  the  manner  seems  an  index 
2  (17) 


18  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

of  the  nature,  even  so  the  land  in  which  one  dwells,  the  people 
who  are  his  people,  the  society,  the  companionship,  the  home ; 
all  become  so  inseparably  linked  with  the  recollections  of  the 
individual  as  to  seem  part  of  himself.  To  know  the  man,  we 
should  know  them,  for  the  devotion  that  clings  to,  and  loves 
and  honors,  the  'honest  and  worthy,  who  are  found  in  the  more 
humble  walks  of  life,  is  a  different  and  more  beautiful  thing 
from  that  which  only  finds  pleasure  among  the  favored  children 
of  opulence,  cultivation,  and  opportunity.  There  is  the  same 
distinction  between  these,  as  between  the  love  of  Pauline,  in 
Bulwer's  beautiful  creation,  when  listening  with  entranced  inter 
est  to  the  seeming  Prince  as  he  told  of  the  dream  Eden  by  the 
Lake  of  Como,  and  the  same  Pauline  as  she  confesses  a  nobler 
emotion,  in  the  arms  of  the  poor  Claude  Melnotte.  So,  too,  if 
we  shall  speak  of  a  man  who  loves  his  home  better  than  all 
other  spots  on  earth ;  it  is  well  to  know  whether  the  home  so 
loved,  be  like  what  Dr.  Johnson  tells  of  the  "  Happy  Yalley  of 
Easselas,"  or  but  one  of  earth's  common  dwelling-places : — 
whether  the  heartstrings  are  tied  to  the  bloom  of  womanhood 
and  childhood,  or  only  fasten  to  unpictured  walls  and  moss- 
grown  graves:  —  whether  the  sentiment  which  moves  and 
actuates  him,  be  in  any  way  akin  to  that  of  the  Swiss,  who  re 
joices  in  his  Alpine  home — 

"And  as  a  child,  when  scaring  sounds  molest, 
Clings  close  and  closer  to  the  mother's  breast ; 
So  the  loud  torrent  and  the  whirlwind's  roar, 
But  bind  him  to  his  native  mountains  more." 

It  is  with  some  such  idea,  as  what  is  thus  imperfectly 
expressed,  that  we  speak  first  of  Mr.  Stephens'  surroundings 
and  HIS  HOME. 

The  traveller  through  the  State  of  Georgia,  will  find  it  some 
what  difficult  to  reconcile  what  he  has  heard  of  the  wealth  of 
that  empire  state  of  the  South,  with  the  appearance  of  poverty 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  19 

which  greets  his  eyes,  as  the  rush  of  the  train  presents  a  pano 
rama  of  the  landscape. 

From  the  crest  of  the  Alleghanies,  near  the  Tennessee  river, 
there  is  a  gradual  slope,  which,  between  the  Chattahoochee  and 
the  Savannah,  takes  somewhat  the  form  of  a  great  ridge,  as  if 
the  mountain  central  crest  were  pointing  its  index  finger  to  the 
Atlantic.  All  such  ridges  are  poor  in  comparison  to  the  fertile 
valleys  that  are  set  like  emeralds  in  the  mighty  framework  of 
the  hills,  but  the  treasures  that  are  born  from  both  hill  and 
vale,  beneath  softening  rain  and  glowing  sun,  can  only  be 
known  when  accurate  statistics  sum  up  the  sources  of  the 
nation's  wealth. 

On  the  ridge  we  speak  of,  is  the  village  of  Crawfordville, 
named  in  honor  of  the  late  William  H.  Crawford,  of  Georgia, 
once  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  on  what  is  called  the  Georgia  railroad,  sixty-four  miles  from 
the  city  of  Augusta  and  one  hundred  and  seven  miles  from 
Atlanta,  being  about  a  medium  between  them  in  altitude. 
Augusta  is  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  feet  above  the  sea, 
Atlanta  one  thousand  and  fifty  feet,  and  Crawfordville  is  six 
hundred  and  eighteen  feet. 

Its  elevation  makes  it  a  pleasant  summer  residence,  and  the 
water,  gushing  in  crystal  purity  from  the  heart  of  the  granite, 
is  cold  enough  without  ice.  The  town  was  built  in  1826,  and 
reached  its  prime  some  ten  years  later.  Tradition  says  that 
while  in  the  height  of  prosperity,  its  "  Town  Commissioners" 
kept  the  streets  in  good  order.  It  had  a  good  brick  court 
house;  a  jail  that  was,  as  usual,  a  discomfort  of  heavy  timber 
and  iron  gratings,  a  commodious  hotel,  and  two  chuches,  only 
one  of  which  now  exists.  There  were  then  several  hundred 
inhabitants. 

In  1836  and  1837,  there  was  an  exodus  of  the  people  from 
the  town  and  county,  who  were  seeking  more  fertile  and  favored 
lands ;  much  capital  was  withdrawn,  and  a  fire  in  1838,  that 
swept  away  all  the  buildings  on  the  north  side  of  the  public 


20  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

square,  marked  the  cessation  of  growth,  and  the  beginning  of 
its  "decline.  The  Georgia  railroad  trains  still  run  through  the 
place,  as  regularly  as  would  be  the  oscillations  of  a  giant  pendu 
lum  sweeping  through  the  hills ;  but  give  little  benefit,  save  in 
transportation  to  market  for  planters,  and  affording  more  speedy 
locomotion  for  travellers,  than  the  wagon  and  stage-coach  which 
they  displaced.  In  summer,  the  mellow  sunbeams  are  reflected 
from  browned  herbage,  or  from  the  great  red  seams  in  the  hills. 
At  train  time,  there  is  always  a  little  assembly  at  the  depot. 
The  fences,  mostly  of  the  Virginia  worm  pattern,  appear  to 
wander  over  the  hills  as  aimlessly  as  the  lazy  cattle  and  swine 
pursue  their  own  desultory  wanderings  along  the  highway. 

Conspicuous  from  the  railroad,  on  the  outskirts  of  the  town, 
is  the  old  Foster  House,  now  called  the  Monk  House,  not  from 
being  a  monastery,  but  from  a  late  owner.  It  was  formerly 
the  grand  house  of  the  village,  but  now  presents  to  each  day's 
sun  or  cloud,  a  front  gray  by  degrees,  and  gradually  more 
gray. 

The  only  brick  house  on  the  main  street,  and  one  of  the  only 
two  in  the  village,  has  given  way  to  despondency  from  dampness 
and  lack  of  use,  and  a  moiety  of  the  rear  wall,  lying  prone  upon 
the  mother  earth,  seeks  to  restore  its  baked  material  to  the 
virgin  clay,  upon  which  it  once  looked  down  in  ruddy  pride. 
The  old  hotel  is  grayheaded  all  over,  and  leans  to  the  street,  as 
if  looking  for  long  gone  guests ;  and  when  we  saw  it,  even  a 
blue  eyed  child  and  fair  maiden  that  dwelt  there,  like  stray 
flowers  in  a  long  neglected  garden,  seemed  a  little  as  if  the 
shadow  of  the  century  plant  in  the  hard  yard,  had  fallen  on 
them. 

The  broken  glass  in  the  court  house  windows,  appeared  kept  in 
memory  of  the  United  States  troops  who  broke  them.  The  Acad 
emy  is  kicking  away  the  rough  stones  that  support  it,  and  all  the 
glass,  and  the  most  of  the  window-sash,  has  been  removed  by 
means  of  small  stones,  hurled  with  unerring  aim  by  the  village 
gamins,  who  thus  manifest  their  zeal  for  improvement.  The 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  21 

time  is  past  when  the  village  had  smooth  streets  of  red  clay, 
bordered  by  green  grass  and  beautiful  trees,  with  white  cottages 
peeping  out  along  the  verdant  ways ;  with  full  stores,  busy  mer 
chants,  good  schools,  and  "  boys  and  girls  playing  in  the  streets 
thereof."  It  all  now  gives  sad  evidence  of  the  want  of  road 
commissioners,  repair,  and  paint.  The  streets  are  washed  by 
rain  and  worn  by  the  attrition  of  feet,  until  the  very  ground 
looks  old  and  wrinkled.  The  little  assembly  of  white  houses 
and  red  chimneys  were  all  rapidly  fading  into  nature's  neutral 
tints,  when  we  saw  them,  under  the  blue  summer  sky  of  1866. 

The  people,  however,  are  good  and  kind,  social,  and  given  to 
hospitality,  with  upright  men,  noble-looking  women,  and  pretty 
children. 

Just  out  of  the  town  is  the  old  churchyard,  where — 

"  Each  in  his  narrow  cell  forever  laid, 
The  rude  forefathers  of  the  hamlet  sleep." 

The  wood  and  stone  erected  in  honor  of  the  dead  seem  mould 
ering  like  the  once  loved  dust  they  tried  to  keep  in  memory, 
and  rain  and  sun,  alternate,  bathe  and  blister  the  hard,  pebble- 
strewn  clay.  Near  it,  on  the  same  hill,  is  the  old  Baptist  church, 
where  all  denominations  peaceably  assemble,  and  all  ministers 
of  orthodox  creeds  are  free  to  teach.  It  looks  whiter  and  fresher 
than  any  thing  else,  as  if  some  of  the  immortality  told  of  so  well 
in  the  humble  pulpit,  had  penetrated  the  very  boards.  On 
Sabbaths,  when  the  hill  echoes  to  the  same  truths  that  were 
taught  by  the  fishermen  of  Galilee,  the  irrepressible  beauty  of 
the  South  blooms  out  in  the  matchless  loveliness  of  Georgia 
women,  sweet  as  her  roses  and  holy  as  her  prayers.  At  the 
foot  of  the  hill  are  cold  springs,  from  which  little  streams 
wander  off  through  the  pines. 

On  the  same  elevated  hill  as  the  church  and  the  graveyard, 
and  only  removed  from  the  town  by  the  somewhat  extended 
grounds,  is  an  unpretending  mansion.  Its  white  outlines  are 
half  hid  by  the  magnificent  grove  of  oaks  in  which  it  stands; 


22  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

and  locust,  hickory,  china,  cedar,  and  other  trees,  shadow  the 
large  yard.  The  turf  is  a  mixture  of  green  Bermuda  and  white 
clover,  spangled  here  and  there  with  other  indigenous  grasses. 
The  jonquilles  disappear  with  the  spring  time.  A  plain,  high 
board  fence,  not  painted,  with  large  white  gates,  encloses  the 
premises.  The  main  dwelling  has  eight  rooms ;  and  two  more, 
with  a  wide  veranda,  have  been  built  to  the  rear. 

From  the  front  porch,  a  door  opens  into  the  hall  or  passage, 
its  floor  spread  with  oil-cloth  in  mosaic,  and  having  no  furniture 
but  an  iron  hat  rack  and  gigantic  barometer. 

On  the  right  of  the  hall  is  the  parlor,  with  neat,  cheerful 
looking  carpet  of  gree'n,  with  arabesques  in  colors.  The  win 
dows  are  without  curtains,  but  have  shades  of  green  and  frosted 
gold.  On  the  mantle  are :  A  large  engraving  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  during  the  great  speech  of  Daniel  Webster,  in 
1850.  A  small  bust  of  Senator  Berrien.  A  fine  cast  by  Saun- 
ders,  intended  as  a  model  for  a  statue  of  General  Oglethorpe, 
the  founder  of  the  Georgia  Colony.  The  sword  in  his  hand  has 
been  damaged  Ify  an  accident.  Lastly,  a  cigar  case,  in  imitation 
of  a  bunch  of  cigars,  the  much  prized  gift  of  a  lady  friend. 

On  the  right  and  left  of  the  fireplace,  are  fine  oil  family  por 
t-raits  by  Healy,  in  massive  gilt  frames.  On  the  walls  hang  two 
medallions,  one  of  Mrs.  Steele,  of  the  Kevolution,  offering  a 
purse  to  General  Green ;  one  of  General  Oglethorpe,  with  curly 
wig,  looking  like  Milton,  but  the  neck  fractured.  A  large  litho 
graph  of  the  proprietor,  and  the  grand  face  of  that  southern 
type  of  manly  beauty,  Eobert  Toombs. 

Upon  a  small  table  is  the  large  Bible,  which,  upon  being 
opened,  is  found  to  contain  a  family  registry,  including  the 
marriages,  births,  and  deaths  of  the  immediate  household,  as 
well  as  the  plantation  servants.  Lastly,  there  is  a  pillar  of  green 
and  white  marble,  surmounted  by  the  beautiful  Italian  marble 
bust  of  the  great  statesman  we  write  of.  It  was  among  the  first 
ever  executed  by  the  young  artist  of  Ohio — J.  Q.  A.  Ward.  It 
was  made  in  1859.  These,  with  the  sofa,  easy  chairs,  and  other 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  23 

culinary  drawing-room  furniture,  are  all  that  meet  the  eye  upon 
entering  the  neatly  papered  room.  All  the  rooms  are  ceiled, 
not  plastered. 

Opposite  the  parlor  is  a  dining  room.  Its  features  are : — 
Brussels  carpet  of  white  and  roses.  The  window-shades  are  a 
plain  pattern  of  green  and  gold.  Then  an  extension  dining- 
table,  an  ancient  sideboard,  a  silent  clock  on  the  mantel-piece, 
before  whose  modest  face  no  hands  are  held,  and  a  frozen 
traveller  watched  by  St.  Bernard  dogs,  displayed  upon  the  fire 
screen. 

Next  a  pantry.  Then  a  bedroom  carefully  reserved  for  an 
occasional  visitor,  a  friend  who  at  all  times  has  a  home  and 
welcome  at  the  mansion,  whenever  he  will  come.  Its  common 
designation  is — Mr.  O'Neal's  room.  There  is  another  bed 
chamber  next  the  parlor. 

The  upper  rooms,  four  in  number,  are  neatly  but  plainly 
furnished,  and  kept  for  the  guests,  male  and  female,  who  often 
come,  and  are  always  made  at  home,  in  what  by  the  owner's 
own  designation  of  long  ago,  is  widely  and  familiarly  known 
as  Liberty  Hall. 

In  the  back  passage,  there  is  always  a  cedar  pail  of  pure  cold 
water,  that  is  so  refreshing  in  the  long,  hot,  summer  days. 
Then  the  porch,  connecting  the  two  rooms  built  to  the  rear, 
with  the  main  building,  and  extending  on  the  eastern  side  into 
a  wide  veranda,  with  massive  square  pillars. 

The  first  of  the  rear  rooms  is  the  library,  a  pretty  room, 
fifteen  by  twenty  feet,  its  floor  covered  with  neat  carpeting  in 
stripes.  The  collection  of  law  and  political  books  is  large  and 
excellent.  Many  valuable  miscellaneous  books  belong  there,  but 
numbers  of  them  are  always  out  in  the  hands  of  borrowers.  The 
library  is  the  collection  of  thirty  years.  Numerous  trunks  con 
tain  the  accumulated  letters  of  a  lifetime.  A  bronzed  bust  of 
Daniel  Webster  looks  gloomily  down  from  a  shelf  over  the 
inner  door.  It  is  gray  with  dust,  and  bears  no  trace  of  that 
"living  light"  in  which  his  eloquence  embalmed  the  flag  of  our 


24  ALEXANDER   H.  STEPHEN'S. 

country.  He  needs  no  bust  or  statue,  for  our  memories  are  the 
amber  that  keeps  his  fame.  Would  that  his  shade  might  return, 
and  re-utter  to  the  whole  land,  those  earnest  words  to — "The 
sober  men  of  Boston." 

The  inner  room  is  the  sanctum  sanctorum.  If  the  visitor 
come  in  winter,  a  light  tap  is  given  on  the  door,  a  quick,  but 
pleasant  voice  says  "Come  in,"  and  turning  the  top  knob  of  the 
door  gives  admittance.  All  is  open  in  summer.  There  is  a  pretty 
carpet  of  green  and  flowers.  Low  French,  bedstead  draped  in 
white.  The  walls  too  are  white.  There  is  a  bureau  and  mirror, 
cot-bed  for  waiting-boy  "Tim,"  wash-stand  and  toilet  furni 
ture.  Over  the  mantel,  Brady's  imperial  photograph,  taken  in 
1855,  of  which  our  third  engraving  is  a  copy.  It  is  flanked  on 
the  right  by  the  picture  of  "Faith  at  the  Cross,"  given  while  at 
Fort  Warren,  by  a  much  valued  lady  friend.  On  the  left  by 
an  embroidered  watch-stand,  and  a  pair  of  lamps.  Then  a 
bookcase  with  broken  glass,  and  bundles  of  papers  in  great 
seeming  disorder.  The  disorder  is  not  so  great,  but  the  owner 
can  readily  find  what  he  wishes,  and  before  the  confusion  inci 
dent  to  the  late  war,  no  statesman  kept  such  perfect  order  among 
so  many  various  papers.  There  is  a  little  round  top  writing- 
table,  with  eyelet  press,  and  papers  and  scraps.  More  papers 
and  scraps  are  in  the  little  table  drawer,  and  the  mind  of  the 
owner  is  the  index  to  them  all,  if  they  are  not  disturbed.  That 
annoys  him  greatly.  His  old  office,  and  another  library,  are  at 
the  court  house,  but  he  seldom  goes  to  it. 

On  the  worsted  hearth-rug  of  this  room,  in  winter,  and  on 
the  grass  of  the  yard  in  summer,  lounges  a  huge  brown  mastiff 
named  Troup.  Near  this  larger  specimen  of  the  canine  species, 
is  usually  to  be  seen  a  little  black  terrier,  with  a  chronic  growl ; 
he  is  called  Frank.  A  restless  yellow  pup  sometimes  intrudes, 
but  is  generally  sent  away  with  the  proper  rebuke  from  his 
grave  seniors.  He  bears  the  appropriate  name  of  Sir  Bingo 
Binks.  one  of  the  characters  in  Walter  Scott's  "St.  Eonan's  Well." 

Eio  (called  Reo),  the  famous  poodle  dog,  the  favorite  pet  and 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHEN'S.  25 

companion  of  the  statesman  for  years,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
has  had,  since  1863,  a  dreamless  sleep  in  the  garden.  The  red 
clay  mound  that  marks  the  spot  of  his  burial,  still  awaits  the 
tablet  for  which  an  appropriate  epitaph  was  once  written : — 

"Here  rest  the  remains 

Of  what,  in  life,  was  a  satire  on  the  human  race 

And  an  honor  to  his  own — 

A  faithful  dog:1 

On  the  left  of  the  .fireplace  of  the  room  we  last  spoke  of,  in 
winter,  and  in  the  veranda  in  summer,  is  generally  seen  the 
owner  of  the  premises.  The  man  is  known  personally,  and  by 
thousands  of  pictures,  from  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Eio  Grande. 
The  face  is  so  kind  that  it  is  almost  handsome ;  and  many  years 
of  high  thought,  generous  deeds,  and  patient  suffering,  have 
given  it  that  peculiar  look  of  the  maturely  good  which  is  al 
most  beautiful.  His  age,  on  the  llth  of  February,  1866,  was 
fifty-four.  The  eyes  are  large,  dark,  habitually  thoughtful,  and 
almost  sad,  sometimes  full  of  brilliant  power,  and  always  fine. 
His  dress  is  much  as  described  by  the  "Blind  Chaplain,"  whom 
we  will  quote  hereafter,  except  that  in  summer  it  is  usually 
white.  The  pure  and  delicate  fabric  of  the  outer  garments, 
however,  hide  the  heavy  woollen  that  ill  health  and  neuralgia 
compel  him  always  to  wear. 

At  the  first,  he  was  a  poor  orphan ;  then,  successful  lawyer ; 
champion  of  education ;  advocate  of  a  great  railroad ;  pro 
tector  of  the  weak  against  the  strong,  righting  wrong  and 
securing  justice;  benefactor  of  the  poor;  faithful  ever  to  the 
home  and  graves  of  his  sires ;  laying  aside  the  robes  of  office 
from  choice,  while  in  the  noon  of  power ;  an  ardent  defender 
of  the  Union,  'as  well  as  devotee  of  the  doctrines  of  State  rights 
of  the  school  of  Jefferson  and  Madison ;  ministering-spirit  at 
the  hospitals,  and  caring  for  captive  enemies  as  for  brethren. 
Then,  a  State  prisoner,  and  afterward  a  Senator  elect,  dedi 
cating  his  matchless  eloquence  again  to  harmony,  wisdom, 


26  .ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

peace,  and  Union ;  hero  of  civil  triumphs  and  bloodless  bat 
tles  ;  Christian  gentleman  and  patriot  statesman ;  in  a  word — 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  STEPHENS, 

"What  he  calls  his  old  Homestead  place,  is  about  two  miles 
from  Crawford ville,  and  is  the  object  of  his  most  cherished 
affections.  It  was  the  home  of  his  grandfather  and  his  father ; 
but  was  sold  at  his  father's  death,  and  repurchased  by  him 
with  his  first  earnings  at  the  bar.  He  has  added  largely  to  the 
original  tract  of  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  acres,  and 
besides  that,  owns  another  farm  of  two  hundred  and  seventy 
acres,  which  is  the  best  grazing  farm  in  the  country.  The  soil 
of  the  old  homestead  place  is  sterile  by  nature,  and  mainly  what 
is  termed  "  upland."  It  is  in  perfect  order,  and  by  careful 
skill  and  liberal  fertilization,  is  quite  productive.  There  are  two 
fine  orchards  on  the  place,  and  a  vineyard,  which,  with  the  one 
he  has  in  the  village,  made  him,  in  I860,  five  hundred  gallons 
of  Catawba  wine.  He  has,  however,  made  none  since,  and 
grape  culture  in  Georgia  is,  so  far,  a  failure.  The  dwelling 
on  the  farm  is  frame,  unpainted,  and  surrounded  by  the  usual 
negro  cabins  that  are  seen  all  over  the  South.  The  place 
is  more  elevated,  and  has  even  colder  water  than  the  village 
home.  His  negroes  have  all  remained  with  him,  and  his 
plantation  is  entirely  in  their  hands  under  contract  of  rent. 
The  following  on  the  subject  of  which  we  are  now  writing,  is 
from  the  special  correspondence  of  the  New  York  Herald,  and 
will  be  read  with  interest : 

"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  TALLIAFERRO  Co.,  GA., 

September  26,  1860. 

"  Leaving  his  luggage  at  the  humble  inn  in  this  little  village, 
which  numbers  but  about  three  hundred  inhabitants,  white  and 
black,  your  correspondent  inquired  the  direction  to  the  residence 
of  the  Hon.  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  the  best  beloved  politician 
in  the  State  of  Georgia.  Walking  to  the  corner  of  a  street,  a 
short  distance  from  the  inn,  our  informant  pointed  in  a  northerly 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  27 

direction,  and  said  :  '  There  is  Mr.  Stephens'  house,  where  that 
white  gate  is,  where  you  see  that  light' — for  the  sun  had  set,  and 
the  curtains  of  night  were  closing  around.  In  a  few  minutes 
your  correspondent  found  himself  within  the  inclosure  and 
walking  up  a  broad  avenue  toward  Mr.  Stephens'  house.  Upon  a 
capacious  porch  in  front  of  the  dwelling,  a  fine  hound  dog  bayed 
deep-mouthed  warning  that  a  stranger  was  approaching ;  but 
cries  of  '  Down,  pup  !'  '  Be  quiet,  pup !'  quieted  the  dog,  and  we 
entered  the  house. 

"  The  first  object  that  met  our  view  was  that  of  a  person,  appa 
rently  a  slightly  formed  youth,  walking  thoughtfully  through  a 
wide  passage  way  that  extended  from  one  side  of  the  dwelling 
to  the  other,  and  open  to  the  air  and  sunshine  at  either  end.  On 
approaching  this  slight,  apparently  fragile  personage,  we  dis 
covered  at  once,  from  his  deeply  marked  and  careworn  features, 
his  broad  forehead,  his  intelligent  and  eloquent  black  eye,  it  was 
no  youth  who  stood  before  us,  but  Mr.  Stephens  himself.  He 
now  weighs  ninety-two  pounds,  and  weighed  but  eighty-four 
when  he  commenced  law  practice  in  Crawfordville.  The  cere 
mony  of  introduction  passed,  Mr.  Stephens  remarked :  '  Let  me 
send  to  the  hotel  for  your  baggage,  and  stop  with  me  while  you 
tarry  here.'  We  thanked  him  and  accepted  his  invitation.  It 
should  be  here  mentioned,  that  the  residence  of  Mr.  Stephens 
is  called  '  Liberty  Hall,'  and  whether  Mr.  Stephens  be  at  home 
or  not,  the  latch  string  is  invariably  hung  outside  for  visitors  and 
friends,  and  servants  are  always  at  hand  to  extend  the  hospitali 
ties  of  the  mansion. 

"  Although  laboring  under  a  severe  attack  of  neuralgia  in  the 
head,    Mr.    Stephens    at    once   engaged    in    conversation,    and 
plunged  into  the  subject  of  the  dangers  that  now  imperil  the 
Union. 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

"Besides  his  home  residence  in  Crawfordville,  which  covers 
about  thirty  acres  of  land,  including  a  fine  peach  and  apple 
orchard,  a  garden  in  which  the  pomegranates  are  now  bursting 
with  their  luscious  sweets,  fig-trees  overshadow  the  ground, 
and  roses  of  the  finest  varieties  are  in  full  bloom,  Mr.  Stephens 


28  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

has  a  plantation  about  two  miles  distant,  embracing  a  thousand 
acres  of  land.  A  portion  of  this  plantation  belonged  to  his 
parents.  His  grandfather  died  and  was  buried  on  the  spot ;  his 
father  and  mother  lived  and  died  there,  and  the  property  falling 
into  other  hands,  it  was  not  until  the  expiration  of  many  years 
that  Mr.  Stephens  was  enabled  to  achieve  the  proudest  object  of 
his  life's  ambition,  the  redemption  of  his  patrimonial  estate. 
He  has  since  added  considerably  to  its  proportions,  and  by  im 
proving  its  culture  rendered  it  one  of  the  finest  plantations  in 
the  county.  It  was  to  this  place  that  the  biggest-littlest  man  in 
the  State  of  Georgia  invited  your  correspondent  to  take  a  horse 
back  ride  yesterday  (Sunday)  morning.  Our  equestrian  educa 
tion  had  been  somewhat  neglected  in  youth,  although  we  had  the 
advantage  of  an  intimate  acquaintanceship  with  Disbrow  and 
other  eminent  professors  of  the  equine  art,  and  our  situation  on 
the  back  of  a  horse  at  this  time  was  quite  a  novel  one. 

"  And  now  behold  us,  en  cheval,  passing  through  the  gates 
toward  the  road.  But  what  is  this  white  building — what  is  this 
crowd  ?  They  appear  within  the  limits  of  Mr.  Stephens'  domain, 
and  the  people  regard  him  with  evident  respect.  The  one  is  a 
modest-looking  and  yet  goodly-sized  Baptist  meeting-house,  and 
the  people  you  see,  have  come  a  distance  of  five  and  ten  miles  to 
worship  there.  They  are  both  white  and  black.  Christ's  blood 
has  sprinkled  them  all  alike  in  the  South,  so  far  as  I  have  seen. 
There  are  a  number  to  be  baptized,  and  this,  with  the  knowledge 
that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hilyer,  of  Penfield,  is  to  preach,  has  attracted 
an  unusually  large  assemblage.  Passing  along,  to  quote  a 
famous  novelist,  '  two  horsemen  might  have  been  seen'  rising  on 
the  crest  of  a  hill  of  red  clay  in  Taliaferro  county,  Georgia,  on  a 
calm  summer's  morn.  They  were  apparently  engaged  in  earnest 
conversation.  One  bestrode  his  horse  as  if  he  were  waxed  to  the 
saddle,  and  the  other  didn't.  It  seemed  that  the  latter  did  not 
know  which  of  four  evils  to  make  choice  of — whether  it  were  best 
to  pop  over  the  horse's  head,  tumble  off  to  the  right  or  to  the 
left,  or  slide  back  over  his  tail.  The  movements  were  unique, 
undoubtedly ;  but  without  accident  we  proceeded. 

"All  along  the  road  were  vehicles,  and  horsemen  and  horse- 


ALEXANDEK  H.   STEPHENS.  29 

women,  going  in  their  neat  Sunday  attire  to  meeting.  Every 
where  was  Mr.  Stephens  saluted  with  respect;  even  the  negroes 
would  stop,  and,  taking  off  their  hats,  cry,  '  Good  mornin',  mass 
Aleck;'  and  Mr.  Stephens  would  respond  by  kindly  inquiring 
after  the  folks  at  home. 

"  The  conversation  during  the  ride  was  interesting,  and  to  me 
instructive,  as  it  opened  a  new  volume  on  the  subject  of  Southern 
life,  manners,  rights,  and  duties.  At  one  point  my  horse  was 
about  a  length  in  the  rear,  when  Mr.  Stephens  observed,  '  Black 
berry  is  rather  lazy  this  morning.'  We  gave  Blackberry  a 
crack,  and  Blackberry  came  near  making  blackberry-jam  of  his 
rider.  In  the  course  of  the  conversation  Mr.  Stephens  reiterated 
his  apprehensions  for  the  future  of  the  country — said  that  the 
leaders  did  not  know  what  volcanoes  were  rumbling  beneath 
them — and,  pointing  to  a  large  oak,  whose  upper  branches  were 
decayed,  said  that,  like  those  branches,  the  leaders  in  the  country 
had  become  corrupt  and  rotten,  and  that  the  insidious  poison 
was  fast  hastening  to  the  trunk — the  masses  of  the  country. 

"  During  the  ride  through  his  plantation,  Mr.  Stephens  pointed 
out  his  vineyard,  comprising  four  acres  of  land.  The  vines  are 
of  the  Catawba  variety,  in  healthful  condition,  and  next  year 
will  produce,  Mr.  Stephens  calculates,  several  hundred  gallons 
of  wine.  He  has  also  near  his  residence  about  an  acre  of  land 
in  which  he  has  planted  what  he  intends  shall  be  a  model  vine 
yard,  and  from  its  fine  situation,  the  thriftiness  of  the  first  year's 
growth,  and  other  significant  reasons,  there  is  no  doubt  his  ex 
pectations  will  be  realized.  Mr.  Stephens  devotes  considerable 
of  his  time  to  his  plantation,  and  a  day  or  two  since  might  have 
been  seen  sowing  rye  in  one  of  his  fields. 
****** 

"After  returning  and  attending  divine  service,  I  was  told  that 
it  was  likely  Senator  Toombs  would  stop  in  passing,  on  his  way 
homeward,  and  take  tea  with  Mr.  Stephens.  With  the  evening 
train  from  Augusta,  along  came  the  great  Southern  agitator. 
His  features  in  the  pictures  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  him, 
but  they  do  not  dance  like  those  of  the  original.  Mr.  Toombs  is 
of  an  active,  and  I  should  think  of  rather  a  jolly  temperament. 


30  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

He  looks  as  if  he  could  sing  'Widow  Machree'  with  as  much 
efiect  as  John  Brougham,  to  whom,  by  the  vt&y,  he  bears  a  strong 

resemblance. 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

"  It  should  be  stated  that  while  the  personal  relations  of  Mr. 
Stephens  and  Mr.  Toombs  are  of  the  most  friendly  nature,  they 
differ  as  widely  as  the  poles  in  relation  to  the  course  the  States 
should  adopt  in  the  event  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election.  Mr.  Toombs 
takes  the  ground  that  the  States  should  forcibly  resist,  Mr. 
Stephens  the  reverse.  As  the  future,  so  pregnant  with  moment 
ous  events,  developes  itself,  Mr.  Stephens  will  be  found,  as  he  is 
now,  on  the  side  of  the  Union,  the  Constitution,  and  the  country. 
Mr.  Toombs  is  and  has  been  for  disunion." 

The  correspondent  of  the  Herald,  from  whom  we  have  above 
quoted,  does  not  speak  of  the  old  home  spot,  where  the  house 
stood  in  which  Mr.  Stephens  was  born.  It  is  on  a  gentle 
eminence  in  an  old  field,  overgrown  with  short  wild  grasses, 
with  a  few  pines,  and  some  wild  plum  trees.  The  miniature 
natural  lake  was  ditched  off  and  dried,  and  the  magnificent 
grove  of  trees  at  the  house  cut  down  by  the  person  who 
bought  the  place  at  the  death  of  his  father.  The  house  in 
which  he  was  born,  was  of  logs,  but  good  for  that  day.  Some 
of  the  logs  are  part  of  a  cabin,  now  occupied  by  a  negro  family 
in  the  same  field.  A  heap  of  stones — the  ruins  of  the  old  chim 
ney  and  hearth-stones — now  mark  the  spot  where  the  home  of 
his  childhood  stood.  A  substantial  granite  wall,  near  by,  in 
closes  the  graves  of  his  kindred.  The  commodious  frame 
building,  which  took  the  place  of  the  log  cabin  when  his  father's 
circumstances  grew  better,  was  sold  by  the  purchaser  of  the 
land,  and  taken  down  and  moved  away.  It  is  now  a  comfort 
able  residence  some  miles  off. 

An  old  field,  the  logs  of  a  cabin,  a  heap  of  stones,  some 
mounds  of  earth  ;  these  are  the  links  which  bind  the  statesman 
to  his  first  home,  and  these  links,  all  the  temptations  of  wealth, 
and  power,  and  fame,  have  failed  to  break. 

The  mental  picture  before  us,  of  the  scene  as  we  last  saw  it, 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  31 

is  this : — A  horse  and  buggy.  A  negro  boy  gathering  wild 
plums.  A  slight  forrn;  somewhat  stooping,  standing  in  the  old 
field  by  the  mound  of  stones,  beneath  the  splendors  of  a  south 
ern  sun  in  June.  To  him  turn  the  eyes  of  millions  of  those  who 
love  the  men  who  benefit  mankind.  His  eyes  seek — • 

"  That  dearest  spot  on  earth  to  him, 
'  His  father's  grave.'  " 


MR.  STEPHENS  has  been  so  often  represented  by  the  pens  of 
able  writers  as  well  as  by  the  engraver's  skill  and  the  fidelity 
of  the  photograph,  that  we  shall  not  profess  to  improve  what 
has  been  done  so  well. 

In  presenting  him,  therefore,  before  the  foot-lights  of  the 
public  stage,  as  well  as  in  the  portraiture  of  private  life  (both 
of  which  are  the  objects  of  this  sketch),  the  introduction  to  our 
audience  may  as  well  be  in  the  language  of  Rev.  William 
Henry  Milburn,  the  half-blind  chaplain  of  Congress.  It  is  as 
accurate  as  ever  written  of  him.  After  speaking  briefly  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  and  a  few  other  veterans,  he  then  pro 
ceeds  to  tell  of  two  young  men,  the  one  from  Georgia  being 
described  first,  and  the  other  one  being  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
of  Illinois.  He  says : — 

"  Alexander  Hamilton  Stephens  is  the  most  powerful  orator  in 
Congress,  and  that  with  all  the  odds  against  him.  When  stand 
ing  he  is  a  man  of  medium  height,  but  when  seated  he  looks  like 
a  boy,  for  his  trunk  is  remarkably  short,  and  his  face  exceeding 
youthful.  Careless  of  his  personal  appearance,  his  hair  falling  in 
masses  over  his  fine  brow ;  his  black,  brown,  or  any  other  colored 
cravat  (he  seems  not  to  know  which)  tied  in  a  sailor's  knot ;  his 
clothes  fitting  well,  if  he  has  been  fortunate  in  his  tailor  (rarely 
the  case) ;  an  immense  gold  chain,  terminated  by  a  heavy  seal, 
falling  from  his  watch  fob,  he  presents  an  unpromising,  not  to 
say  an  outre  appearance.  When  in  repose,  his  face  does  not 
promise  much  more  ;  pale,  with  a  slightly  sallow  tinge,  sometimes 
with  a  hectic  flush  upon  his  cheek,  it  seems  to  belong  to  a  beard- 


32  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

less  boy.  His  arms  and  legs  are  very  long,  and  his  whole  frame, 
not  compactly  knit,  appears  loose  and  awkward,  and  the  victim 
of  life-long  disease.  How  nearly  disease  and  genius  may  be 
associated,  is  a  question  which  I  leave  for  physiologists  and 
psychologists  to  settle.  But  I  feel  sure  that  sleepless  nights  and 
days  of  pain  and  fever  have  had  much  to  do  with  the  brilliant 
intellect  of  this  remarkable  man.  His  voice,  too,  in  common 
talk,  gives  as  little  token  of  his  power  as  his  other  features,  for 
it  is  thin,  high-pitched,  and  inclining  to  the  falsetto.  Trained  as 
a  lawyer  at  the  Georgia  bar,  a  wonderful  school  for  development 
of  popular  eloquence  (for  the  jury  system  is  pushed  there  to  its 
remotest  limits),  he  early  displayed  those  gifts  which  have  made 
his  name  so  famous ;  a  sharp,  incisive  intellect,  broad  in  its  com 
prehension,  firm  in  its  grasp,  as  keen  in  its  perceptions,  coupled 
with  an  emotional  nature,  delicate  as  it  is  strong,  giving  him  an 
invincible  hold  upon  the  interest  and  sympathy  of  his  hearers. 
Returned  to  the  House  of.  Representatives  when  scarcely  thirty 
years  of  age,  he  had,  by  the  time  I  first  saw  him,  already  gained 
the  undivided  ear  of  the  House.  When  he  stood  up  to  speak, 
there  was  no  lunching,  chatting,  or  apathy  in  the  Hall,  which 
seemed  divided  between  the  silence  and  his  voice.  The  almost 
feminine  squeak  of  opening  soon  became  a  consistent  ringing  tone, 
penetrating  eve^  corner  of  the  spacious  apartment ;  and  judging 
of  h^s  effect  upon  the  ear,  I  can  well  believe  what  I  have  so  often 
heard,  that  the  impression  of  his  presence  upon  the  eye  almost 
amounted  to  a  transformation.  * 

"  In  defence  of  his  position  he  is  at  once  logical  and  persuasive, 
setting  his  argument  before  you  in  a  clear  light  and  striking  atti 
tude,  insomuch  that  the  remark  of  Mr.  Horace  Greeley  is  justi 
fied,  '  that  you  forget  you  are  listening  to  the  most  eloquent  man 
in  Washington,  and  only  feel  that  he  is  right.' 

"  His  manner  is  rapid,  sometimes  vehement,  always  collected. 
Having  in  an  instant  gained  your  absorbed  attention,  he  wins 
your  confidence  by  his  apparent  fairness  of  reasoning,  until  at 
length  you  submit  yourself  to  his  control  without  compunction, 
or  the  dread  of  his  being  overcome.  The  most  brilliant,  albeit 
not  the  most  satisfying,  part  of  his  oratory  is  seen  when  he  turns 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  33 

upon  his  opponents.  His  powers  of  satire,  ridicule,  sarcasm,  and 
invective,  are  fearful,  and  yet  the  man  of  good  breeding  never 
forgets  himself,  nor  is  hurried  away  into  truculent  abuse.  Many 
a  man  has  smarted,  or  even  withered  under  Mr.  Stephens'  irony 
or  denunciation ;  but  I  question  if  any  has  ever  had  cause  to  say 
that  he  was  not  a  gentleman. 

"  I  fancy  that  there  are  several  points  of  apparent  resemblance 
between  Mr.  Stephens,  and  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  ;  but  there 
must  be  more  of  real  difference.  Bothrhave  been  the  victims  of 
disease  whose  origin  dates  far  back  in  life,  and  each  has  conse 
quently  been  the  owner  of  a  body,  which,  however  exquisitely  it 
may  have  been  strung,  has  been  perilously  sensitive.  Both  have 
exercised  almost  unequal  sway  upon  the  floor  of  Congress ;  and 
both  have  been  noted  as  masters  in  the  art  of  offensive  parlia 
mentary  warfare.  Both  have  been  admitted  to  be  unimpeachably 
honest  and  fearless  statesmen,  shunning  no  danger,  and  braving 
every  peril  in  the  maintenance  of  their  peculiar  and  cherished 
convictions.  But  Mr.  Randolph  had  scarcely  a  friend.  Mr. 
Stephens  has  hardty  an  enemy.  Bodily  infirmity,  if  it  did  not 
master  Mr.  Randolph's  will,  soured  his  temper,  and  gave  to  his 
perfect  diction  the  poison  of  wormwood,  and  to  his  spirit  the  gall 
of  bitterness  that  verged  upon  misanthropy.  Mr.  Stephens  has 
conquered  suffering,  and  made  himself  strong  and  noble  by  enter 
ing  heartily  into  the  sweet  charities  of  life. 

"  The  Virginian,  proud  of  his  lineage  and  his  birth-place ;  an 
intolerant  aristocrat,  with  varied  and  finished  culture,  refined 
taste,  a  high  sense  of  honor,  a  mind  disposed  to  prey  upon  itself, 
and  a  contempt  for  those  who  did  not  share  his  advantages, 
nevertheless,  presented  a  curious  spectacle,  as  the  unflinching 
advocate  of  extreme  democratic  doctrines,  while  at  the  same 
time  he  was  unable  to  free  himself  from  the  tyrannous  sentiment 
of  exclusiveness  and  caste.  With  an  air  of  stately  haughtiness, 
he  entered  the  lists  of  Congressional  debate  like  some  solitarj' 
champion,  with  his  vizor  up,  that  all  might  recognize  him,  wear 
ing  the  colors  of  a  fair  lady,  whose  place  upon  the  throne  of  his 
affections  never  knew  a  rival,  and  in  honor  of  his  own  Virginia 
defiantly  threw  down  his  gage  of  battle  to  all  comers.  He  chal- 
3 


84  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

lenged  your  admiration,  and  demanded  your  submission ;  he  dis 
dained  your  sympathy,  and  scorned  your  weakness.  If  you  were 
not  a  gentleman  by  the  four  descents,  he  would  hurl  at  you  all 
the  fiery  darts  of  his  jeering  ridicule ;  and  if  you  were  not  born 
in  the  '  Old  Dominion,'  nothing  could  expiate  your  offence,  and  as 
a  Pariah  you  must  bear  the  insult  of  his  complacent  or  scoffing 
pityi  Any  provincialism  of  pronunciation  or  phrase  upon  the 
part  of  a  man  whom  he  thought  worthy  to  be  considered  an 
antagonist,  was  chastised,in  the  summary  fashion  of  a  pedagogue, 
and  more  than  one  distinguished  member  of  our  national  council 
has  been  taught  English  by  the  great  Virginian ;  insomuch,  that 
in  his  day  he  deserved  the  appellation  of  the  schoolmaster  of 
Congress.  The  Georgian,  on  the  other  hand,  is  as  simple  and 
genial  in  his  manners  as  a  child ;  considerate  and  kind  to  all,  his 
friendliness  begets  for  him  friendship.  He  rarely  speaks  except 
upon  an  occasion  which  demands  all  his  powers,  and  then  after 
mature  deliberation,  and  a  careful  survey  of  his  own  position  and 
that  occupied  by  those  opposed  to  him  ;  so  that  he  is  like  a  great 
general  leading  disciplined  and  well  concentrated  forces  to  the 
attack,  and  so  admirable  are  at  once  his  instinctive  and  reflec 
tive  powers,  that  he  seldom  makes  a  mistake  or  suffers  a  defeat. 
He  is  a  born  leader  of  men,  because  his  comprehensive  and  in 
tellectual  nature  is  seconded  and  animated  by  his  yet  finer  social 
nature ;  and  whether  Mr.  Stephens  continues  in  the  House,  which 
I  presume  he  would  prefer,  as  the  great  popular  body,  or  be  re 
moved  to  the  Senate,  I  think  that  the  country  will  one  day  adjudge 
him  the  finest  orator  and  ablest  statesman  in  either. 

"The  idol  of  Mr.  Randolph's  political  worship  was  State 
sovereignty  ;  the  coordinate  rights  of  the  States  in  harmony  with 
the  unity  and  ascendency  of  the  Federal  government  is  the  plat 
form  of  Mr.  Stephens.  Mr.  Randolph  was  a  Virginian ;  Mr 
Stephens  is  a  patriot."* 

*  We  do  not  understand  Mr.  Milburn  as  doubting  the  patriotism  of 
John  Eandolph,  but  only  as  believing  the  man  of  Roanoke  to  feel — "Not 
that  I  love  the  Union  less,  but  Virginia  more."  While  it  is  also  true,  as 
stated,  that  Mr.  Stephens  was  ardently  attached  to  the  union  of  States, 
yet  he  was  not  less  ardently  attached  to  State  sovereignty,  as  will  be 
seen  before  we  clo  ^e. 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  35 

That  was  many  years  ago.  When  Ave  write — in  the  summer 
of  1866 — the  heart  of  the  man  and  the  brain  are  just  the  same, 
and  the  face  and  form  changed  but  little. 

The  bending  of  the  form,  from  study  and  weakness,  not  from 
his  fifty-four  years,  is  a  little  more  perceptible  than  then.  The 
cliveof  his  cheek  deepens  somewhat  as  the  shadows  of  eternity 
lengthen  out  over  the  lowlands  of  time,  and  the  anxious  care 
for  a  nation  of  states  and  a  nation  of  individuals,  has  plowed 
deeper  the  seams  in  his  face ;  but  the  brown  hair  shows  only 
slight  trace  of  the  white  grave  blossoms,  and  the  soul  looks 
through  the  eyes  with  the  olden  splendor.  It  is  in  no  hyper 
bole  that  men  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  him  as  "  this  most 
remarkable  man  ;"  for  mentally  and  physically — as  the  poor  boy, 
the  patient  student,  the  young  lawyer,  the  legislator,  the  great 
advocate,  the  famed  Congressman,  the  benefactor  of  youth 
seeking  for  education,  the  retiring  statesman,  the  vice-president 
of  a  league  of  States,  the  State  prisoner  and  the  Senator  elect, 
the  always  invalid,  the  gentleman  and  the  Christian ;  as  all 
these  (and  with  a  sad  consciousness  of  unfitness  for  the^task), 
it  is  to  depict  these  lights  and  shadows  of  a  remarkable  life, 
that  we  attempt  to  write  of  the  great  Georgian. 

As  the  ground  we  tread  has  already  been  gone  over  b) 
other  writers,  and  as  reading  their  views  must  necessarily  color 
and  shape  our  own,  it  is  as  well,  while  upon  the  threshold  of 
the  subject,  to  gratefully  admit  the  aid  received  from  the 
sketches  of.  John  Mitchell,  the  Irish  patriot ;  J.  B.  Thorpe,  the 
"  Bee  Hunter ;"  John  Savage,  author  of  "  Our  Living  Eepre- 
sentative  Men,"  and  from  others,  to  whom  we  will  attempt  to 
give  proper  credit  for  things  we  borrow,  whether  thoughts, 
facts,  or  words.  The  author  only  claims  to  correctly  state 
some  things  about  which  error  has  existed,  and  to  give  some 
new  facts,  together  with  unpublished  letters  and  speeches  not 
generally  accessible  to  the  people  of  these  States ;  all  in  regard 
to  the  man  whose  name  is  a  household  word  beyond  the 


36  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

boundaries  of  his  State,  and  whose  honest  fame  spreads  wider 
than  the  dominions  of  the  English  tongue. 

The  grandfather  of  Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  and  the  founder 
of  the  American  branch  of  the  family,  was  an  Englishman  by 
birth,  an  adherent  to  the  fortunes  of  the  Chevalier  Edward  (the 
Pretender),  and  was  therefore  opposed  to  the  House  of  Hanover, 
of  which  his  Majesty,  George  III.,  was  the  representative  at  the 
time  of  the  Revolution.  During  the  pre-revolutionary,  Indian 
troubles,  he  served  under  General  Braddock,  and  was  with 
him  while  marching  on  Fort  Du  Quesne,  and  at  the  memorable 
defeat.  In  another  expedition  he  served  under  Colonel  (after 
wards  General)  Washington. 

During  the  Revolutionary  war,  he  took  an  active  part  on  the 
side  of  the  colonies,  and  arose  to  the  rank  of  captain  on  the 
patriot  side.  His  home  was  then  in  Pennsylvania.  In  the 
year  1795,  he  settled  in  Georgia,  first  in  Elbert  county,  then  in 
Wilkes,  on  Kettle  creek,  where  he  dwelt  until  1805,  when  he 
finally  removed  again  and  settled  a  place  in  that  part  of  Wilkes 
which  was  afterward  cut  off,  forming  part  of  Taliaferro.  An 
drew  B.  Stephens,  the  father,  and  Alexander  Stephens,  the 
grandfather  of  him  of  whom  we  write,  died  upon  the  place. 
The  subject  of  this  sketch,  was  born  there  on  the  llth  day  of 
February,  1812.  He  was  named  "Alexander/7  for  the  grand 
father,  who  fought  on  the  collonial  side.  The  middle  name, 
"Hamilton,"  was  subsequently  adopted  by  him  from  love  and 
respect  for  his  greatest  benefactor,  Rev.  Alexander  Hamilton 
Webster,  of  Wilkes  county — afterward  his  preceptor — and  who 
was  a  favorite  preacher  in  Georgia. 

His  father,  Andrew  B.  Stephens,  was  a  farmer  of  moderate 
means,  industrious,  just,  and  upright.  His  death,  in  the  boy 
hood  of  Alexander,  May  7,  1826,  deprived  him  of  the  care  and 
example  of  a  most  excellent  man.  His  mother,  Margaret  Grier 
who  was  a  sister  of  the  author  of  the  famous  Grier's  Almanac, 
and  a  distant  relative  of  Justice  Grier,  of  the  United  States 


ALEXANDER    H.   STEPHENS.  37 

Supreme  Court,  died  when  he  was  an  infant,  which  was  perhaps 
his  greatest  loss.  He  had  one  full  brother,  and  one  full  sister, 
both  of  whom  are  dead.  His  father  married  a  second  time,  by 
which  marriage  there  was  also  two  sons  and  a  daughter ;  of 
these  half  brothers  and  sister,  the  Hon.  Lin  ton  Stephens,  of 
Sparta,  Georgia,  late  Judge  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  is  the 
only  one  that  survives. 

John  Savage,  Esq.,  thus  speaks  of  this  period  of  the  life  of 
Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  : 

"  Having  been  deprived  of  the  fond  care  of  his  mother,  Mar 
garet  Grier,  in  infancy,  he  suffered  the  loss  of  his  father  in 
boyhood.  The  solicitude  and  nourishment  which  would  have 
made  a  strong  boy  of  him,  were  debarred  in  childhood,  and 
that  directing  care  which  moulds  the  youth  into  a  man,  was 
lost  in  boyhood.  He  was  left  an  orphan  at  the  age  of  fourteen. 
****** 

Dependent  almost  entirely  on  himself,  his  future  looked  dim 
enough ;  and  who  would  have  dreamed  that  the  sickly,  emacia 
ted  boy  would  loom  up  from  the  dreary  hearthstone  of  that 
desolated  homestead  into  the  councils  of  the  nation,  and  the 
brotherhood  of  the  famous  ?" 

His  parental  home  was  sold  for  distribution,  and  the  portion 
of  each  child  was  only  four  hundred  and  forty-four  dollars. 

Before  his  father's  death,  he  had  been  a  regular  attendant  at 
the  village  "neighborhood,"  school.  A  kind  uncle,  Aaron  W. 
Grier,*  offered  him  a  home  without  charge  for  board,  and  the 

*  This  uncle  lived  to  see  his  nephew  and  ward  (Alexander)  rise  to  the 
highest  distinction.  He  always  took  the  deepest  interest  in  his  career, 
and  ever  cherished  toward  him  the  tenderest  affection.  We  clip,  from 
the  Augusta  (Georgia)  Constitutionalist,  the  following  obituary  notice  of 
him : 

"  Died  at  his  residence,  near  Ray  town,  Taliaferro  county,  Georgia,  on 
the  14th  of  January,  1864,  General  AARON  W.  GRIER.  The  deceased 


38  ALEXANDEK   H.   STEPHENS. 

interest  of  Ms  little  patrimony  of  four  hundred  and  forty-dollars 
at  eight  per  cent.,  the  then  existing  legal  rate,  barely  paid  for 
tuition  and  clothing.  By  the  laws  of  the  State  the  principal 
could  not  be  used,  but  was  held,  during  minority,  by  his  guar 
dian  for  his  advantage. 

Master  Stephens  being  a  boy  of  strict  morality,  and  professed 
and  acknowledged  piety,  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Superin 
tendent  of  the  Sabbath-school  where  he  attended,  by  his  extra- 
was  a  man  of  many  strongly  marked  traits  of  character.  When  quite 
young,  he  volunteered  in  the  forces  that  went  out  under  Floyd,  in  the 
Creek  Indian  war  of  1812.  He  was  in  the  battle  of  Caleebe,  where  the 
gallant  Butts  fell.  In  this  campaign  he  evinced  that  military  talent  which 
characterized  his  after  life.  He  was  soon  after  elected  major  of  a  bat 
talion  of  militia,  afterward  colonel  of  a  regiment,  and  subsequently,  brig 
adier-general. 

"This  position  he  held  for  many  years,  which  he  resigned  in  conse 
quence  of  ill-health.  He  was  of  clear  and  vigorous  mind,  and  of  the  most 
scrupulous  honor,  truth,  and  integrity ;  very  few,  amongst  men,  are  ever 
found  more  exemplary  in  their  conduct,  or  upright  in  all  their  dealings 
with  their  fellows,  than  he  was.  In  the  latter  years  of  his  life,  he  was 
severely  afflicted.  At  one  time,  he  was  completely  paralyzed  in  every 
member  of  his  body,  though  his  intellectual  powers  remained  unimpaired. 
From  this  affliction  he  recovered  sufficiently  to  travel  about  and  attend 
to  his  farm.  He  took  great  pleasure  in  agriculture  and  stock  raising, 
particularly  in  sheep,  and  occasionally  contributed  with  his  pen  to  jour 
nals  devoted  to  these  objects.  In  politics,  he  was  of  the  old  Crawford, 
Troup,  State  rights  school,  these  were  the  principles  of  his  youth,  his 
manhood,  and  old  age. 

'•  He  was  emphatically  a  good  citizen,  a  kind  neighbor,  an  affectionate 
husband,  a  tender  father,  and  an  indulgent  master. 

"  Pneumonia  was  the  disease  that  took  him  off  at  the  age  of  sixty-seven. 
He  seemed  to  be  conscious  of  his  approaching  change,  and  met  it  with 
perfect  resignation,  retaining  his  consciousness  until  near  the  last. 

"  He  was  of  the  Presbyterian  faith,  though  he  never  united  himself 
with  any  church. 

"  In  him  has  passed  away  one  of  the  best  of  men  (taken  all  in  all)  ever 
known  by  one  who  has  seen  a  good  deal  of  mankind,  and  who  knew  him 
well." 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  39 

ordinary  capacity  as  well  as  other  good  qualities.  This  kind 
gentleman  was  Mr.  Charles  C.  Mills.  He  proposed  an  arrange 
ment  by  which  young  Stephens  might  be  able  to  secure  to  him 
self 'a  better  education  than  he  seemed  likely  to  acquire  at  home. 

He  had  been  to  school  five  months  after  the  death  of  his 
father,  attending  school  in  winter,  and  working  on  the  farm  in 
summer.  The  offer  of  Mr.  Mills,  which  was  to  send  him  to 
school,  was  accepted,  but  with  the  distinct  understanding  that 
the  money  was  a  loan  that  Master  Stephens  was  to  repay. 
This  arrangement  being  concluded,  he  went  to  the  Academy  in 
Washington,  Georgia,  then  one  of  the  best  classical  schools  in 
the  State. 

It  was  under  the  direction  and  control  of  Rev.  Alexander 
Hamilton  Webster,  before  referred  to.  Under  this  most  excel 
lent  gentleman,  with  whom  he  boarded,  Master  Stephens  com 
menced  his  studies.  The  clergyman  was  delighted  at  the  pro 
ficiency  of  his  pupil.  Mr.  Webster  had  the  charge  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  there  at  that  time,  and  at  an  early  day, 
after  the  pupil  entered  the  academy,  had  the  satisfaction  of 
receiving  him  into  church  membership. 

Stephens  had  no  such  opportunity  before,  no  church  of  that 
faith  being  near  his  father's.  Toward  the  close  of  the  first 
term,  Master  Stephens  was  informed  by  Mr.  Webster,  that  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  Mills  had  been  at  his  instance,  having  heard 
of  Master  Stephens  not  only  from  Mr.  Mills,  but  from  several 
other  sources.  He  thought,  if  educated,  his  pupil  would  be 
well  fitted  for  the  ministry.  He  had  made  the  arrangement 
with  a  view  of  having  him  under  his  own  observation,  and  of 
satisfying  himself  on  that  point.  He  was  well  pleased,  and 
urged  upon  young  Stephens  this  course  for  his  future  life.  He 
stated  that  it  was  his  desire  to  prepare  him  for  college,  to  furnish 
board  and  tuition,  and  after  that,  there  was  a  Board  of  Educa 
tion,  known  as  the  "  Georgia  Education  Society,"  which  would 
supply  all  further  needful  means. 

This  was  a  new  phase  of  the  question,  and  the  young  student 


40  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

was  somewhat  perplexed  by  it.  Upon  returning  home  to  his 
uncle's  at  the  close  of  the  term  or  quarter,  and  consulting  with 
the  uncle,  who  offered  no  opposition,  and  with  an  aunt — a 
highly  intellectual,  excellent,  and  religious  lady,  who  ap 
proved  it — he  concluded  to  pursue  his  studies  under  the 
arrangement  proposed.  It  was  with  a  renewal  of  the  under 
standing,  however,  that  all  advances  of  money  should  be 
returned,  in  case  he  should  not,  on  arriving  at  maturer  age,  feel 
it  to  be  his  duty  to  enter  the  ministry.  In  any  and  all  events 
if  he  should  ever  be  able.  These  views  he  reported  to  Mr. 
Webster  at  the  opening  of  the  next  quarter.  They  were 
acceptable,  and  he  continued  at  school.  In  a  short  time,  how 
ever,  Mr.  Webster  —  a  man  who  stood  high  in  Georgia  as 
a  teacher  and  a  divine — was  taken  ill  with  a  malignant  autumn 
fever,  and  died  a  few  days  after.  This  loss  was  deeply  felt  by 
Master  Stephens,  who  cherished  toward  him  a  filial  regard,  and 
had  (as  before  stated)  adopted  the  middle  name  of  his  benefactor 
in  token  of  it.  The  prospect  of  the  future,  as  it  was  before 
open,  was  utterly  changed,  and  he  immediately  prepared  to 
return  to  his  uncle's. 

Several  gentlemen  of  wealth  and  worth  in  the  town,  however, 
who  were  devoted  friends  to  Mr.  Webster,  and  members  of  his 
church,  knew  his  estimate  of  Master  Stephens,  and  his  wishes  in 
that  regard.  Among  them  may  be  named  Adam  L.  Alexander, 
Dr.  Felix  Gilbert  Hay,  Colonel  Duncan  G.  Campbell,  father  of 
Hon.  John  A.  Campbell,  late  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Bench,  and  Mr.  William  Dearing.  These  urged  young  Stephens 
to  remain  at  the  school,  which  was  continued  under  the  direction 
of  Rev.  Thomas  Magruder.  They  opened  their  houses  to  him, 
and  bade  him  make  himself  at  home  with  them.  The  kind 
offers  were  accepted,  and  he  first  spent  a  portion  of  his  time 
with  Mr.  Alexander,  then  with  Dr.  Hay,  and  last  with  Mr. 
Dearing,  until  he  was  prepared  for  college. 

He  entered  the  academy  early  in  August,  1827,  and  left  it 
early  in  June,  1828  :  there  having  been  a  vacation  of  six 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  41 

weeks  between  these  periods.  So  that,  beginning  with  the  rudi 
ments  of  English,  he  was  prepared  for  college  in  nine  months. 

Of  the  persons  above  named,  Colonel  Campbell  died  just  be 
fore  Mr.  Stephens  entered  college.  Dr.  Hay  and  Mr.  Bearing 
have  long  since  been  dead ;  Mr.  Alexander  still  lives  in  Wash 
ington,  Georgia,  and  is  known  as  one  of  the  most  intellectual, 
best  informed,  and  worthy  men  of  the  State. 

Thus  Mr.  Stephens  entered  college  in  August,  1828,  and  took 
his  place  in  the  Freshman  Class.  As  time  advanced,  there 
was  no  change  in  his  religious  inclination,  but  by  the  close  of 
the  second  year  great  doubts  had  arisen  in  his  mind  as  to  his 
special  fitness  for  the  sacred  office.  While  under  such  a  doubt, 
the  beneficiary  circumstances  under  which  he  was  placed  were 
a  little  embarrassing,  and  he  made  his  trouble  known  to  the 
uncle  who  was  his  guardian. 

The  guardian  was  by  this  time  satisfied  of  the  trustworthiness 
of  his  ward  and  minor,  and  surrendered  to  him  the  corpus  of  his 
patrimony.  With  this,  he  for  the  future  paid  his  way,  and  upon 
graduating  in  1832,  with  the  highest  honors,  he  borrowed  enough 
from  his  elder  brother,  Aaron  G.  Stephens,  to  pay  all  arrears  of 
advanced  money,  with  interest.  His  Alma  Mater  was  the  State 
University  at  Athens,  generally  known  as  Franklin  College.  • 

With  his  native  honest  independence,  he  at  once  obtained  a 
situation  as  teacher  in  Madison,  Georgia,  and  afterward  a  posi 
tion  as  private  tutor  in  Liberty  county.  As  a  teacher  he  was 
remarkably  successful,  and  equally  popular  with  the  patrons  for 
the  rapid  and  thorough  advancement  of  their  children,  and 
with  the  pupils,  for  all  the  liberty  and  kindness  compatible 
with  inflexible  firmness  on  his  part  and  complete  obedience 
on  theirs.  There  are  few  of  those  pupils  not  now  eminent. 

The  result  of  his  labor  as  teacher  and  tutor  (which  last  place  he 
took  from  failing  health)  was  a  considerable  exhaustion  of  thelittle 
vitality  he  had,  but  the  full  payment  of  all  his  debts,  and  a  small 
sum  of  money  in  his  pocket  when  he  began  the  study  of  law. 

His  attachment  to  the  first  pocketbook  he  ever  had,  has  been 


42  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

often,  bat  not  always  accurately  spoken  of.  He  yet  carries  it 
constantly  with  him,  and  the  date  in  it  is,  May  26th,  1834.  He 
began  the  study  of  law  on  that  day.  A  lawyer  of  Crawford- 
ville,  Mr.  Swepston  C.  Jefferies,  was  retiring  from  practice,  and 
had  already  sold  out  the  most  of  his  books.  The  few  remain 
ing  elementary  ones,  to  wit,  Starkie  on  Evidence,  Maddox's 
Chancery,  Comyn's  Digest,  Chitty's  Pleadings,  etc.,  Mr.  Stephens 
bought  and  paid  twenty-five  dollars  for  them.  That  day, 
wanting  something  to  hold  papers,  he  went  to  the  store  of  a 
merchant  who  was  not  acquainted  with  him,  to  purchase  the 
receptacle  we  have  spoken  of.  The  merchant  did  not  know 
that  he  wished  to  pay  for  it,  and  asked  some  one  if  he  could 
safely  trust  young  Stephens.  The  question  of  credit  was  not 
made,  however,  and  the  wished-for  article  was  bought  and  paid  for 

Upon  the  purchase  of  the  law  books,  Mr.  Stephens  took  the 
place  in  the  sheriff's  office  vacated  by  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Jeffer 
ies.  The  arrangement  had  been  that  the  attorney  might  occupy 
the  room  in  the  court  house  appropriated  to  the  sheriff'  of  the 
county,  on  the  condition  of  giving  that  officer  general  legal 
advice  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties.  The  young  neophyte 
took  it  on  the  same  terms,  and  thus  held  it  until  his  election  to 
Congress  in  1843.  He  read  law  alone  and  without  any  instruc 
tor.  To  acquaint  himself  with  the  forms  of  practice  in  use  in 
Georgia,  he  had  access  to  the  clerk's  office  in  an  adjoining 
room.  Much  of  the  recording  of  the  clerk  was  done  by  him, 
to  gain  familiarity  with  the  full  details  of  an  action,  from  the 
Declaration,  to  final  Judgment  and  Execution.  Also  the  .same 
with  Equity  Pleadings,  there  being  then,  as  now,  a  chancery 
side  to  the  Superior  Courts  of  his  State.  No  assistance  was  had 
from  any  other  quarter. 

A  little  poem  that  was  once  the  pet  school  speech  of  small 
southern  children,  says : 

"  Large  streams  from  little  fountains  flow, 

Tall  oaks  from  little  acorns  grow." 

And  few  great  things  have  ever  come  from  smaller,  more  un 
promising,  and  more  obscure  beginnings,  than  the  man  we  write  of. 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  43 


II. 

EISE  AND  SUCCESS  IN  LIFE. 

ADMISSION    TO     THE    BAR — ELECTION    TO    THE    LEGISLATURE — 
ELECTION   TO    CONGRESS. 

MR.  STEPHENS  was  admitted  to  the  bar  on  the  22d  day  of 
July,  1834,  when  twenty-two  years  old.  No  profound  jurist  of 
the  school  of  Coke  upon  Littleton  had  helped  him,  but  he  went 
to  the  examination  relying  alone  upon  his  wonderful  memory, 
and  his  text  books.  He  was  examined  before  the  Hon.  William 
H.  Crawford,  at  the  last  court  but  one  he  ever  held ;  by  Hon. 
Joseph  Henry  Lnmpkin,  afterward  and  now  Chief  Justice  of 
the  State  Supreme  Court.  Upon  admission,  he  was  compli 
mented  by  these  eminent  jurists  upon  having  sustained  as  good  an 
examination  as  they  had  ever  heard  in  all  their  time  at  the  bar. 
Mr.  Jefferies,  the  retired  Attorney  and  Counsellor  we  have 
spoken  of,  being  wealthy  and  having  some  professional  ambi 
tion,  proposed  that  Mr.  Stephens  should  go  with  him  to  Colum 
bus,  Georgia,  on  the  following  terms :  Mr.  Jefferies  to  purchase 
a  large  law  library  and  fit  up  an  office  there,  Mr.  Stephens  to 
be  his  partner.  He  offered  to  guarantee  young  Stephens  fifteen 
hundred  dollars  a  year,  besides  his  board  bills,  if  the  half  of  the 
partnership  did  not  amount  to  so  much  ;  an  equal  division  if  it 
exceeded  that.  Mr.  Stephens  replied  that  he  would  rather  stay 
where  he  was  if  he  only  made  one  hundred,  than  make  five 
thousand  a  year  anywhere  else.  Mr.  Jefferies  laughingly  said  he 
would  guarantee  that  for  nothing,  and  assured  him  of  tolerable, 
if  not  brilliant  success  even  there.  The  encouragement  thus 
given  as  to  the  prospect  of  making  a  bare  living,  near  the  scenes 
of  his  childhood,  decided  him  to  remain  in  Crawfordville.  That 


44  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

interview  settled  the  question  of  location.  He  lived  on  six 
dollars  a  month,  made  his  own  fires,  blacked  his  own  boots,  and 
made  four  hundred  dollars  the  first  year. 

He  had  a  horse  the  second  year,  which  he  groomed  himself. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  deceptiveness  of  appearances,  we  give 
the  following  anecdote  which  Mr.  Stephens  tells  of  himself: 

There  was  at  that  time  a  shoe  factory  in  Crawfordville,4  and 
as  Mr.  Stephens  passed  there  one  morning  early,  walking  fast 
as  his  habit  was,  one  of  three  negroes  suspended  his  cup  in  the 
act  of  dipping  up  water,  and  asked : 

"  Who  is  that  little  fellow  that  walks  by  here  so  fast  of 
mornings  ?" 

The  second  replied : 

"  Why  man,  lhafs  a  lawyer  !" 

The  third  negro  exclaimed : 

"A  lawyer !  A  lawyer,  you  say  !  Ha !  ha  !  ha !  that's  too 
good !" 

That  conversation,  thus  overheard,  caused  the  young  attorney 
much  serious  thought.  He  was  not  angry,  but  took  it  as  an 
accidental  revelation  of  popular  opinion  of  him.  The  prospect 
at  the  time  and  place  was  anything  but  promising.  There 
were  less  than  half  a  dozen  cases  returned  to  that  term  of  the 
court.  It  was  from  this  reason  that  Mr.  Jefferies  had  retired 
from  practice,  there  not  being  enough  business  to  engage  his 
attention.  Mr.  Stephens  had  stayed  on  his  kind  assurance  of 
some  business. 

The  amused  negroes  did  not  know  that  the  "  lawyer"  would 
be  so  prominent  a  defender  of  the  wronged  of  their  race.  Mr. 
Stephens  has  defended  and  saved  the  lives  and  persons  of  more 
negroes,  perhaps,  than  any  man  in  Georgia.  The  negro  who 
made  the  remark  was  free,  but  in  less  than  six  months,  that 
"  little  fellow"  had  saved  him  from  punishment  under  a  serious 
charge,  by  exposing  a  defect  in  the  warrant. 

Mr.  Stephens'  "shingle"  as  the  saying  is,  was  put  out,  and  the 
next  week  he  started  on  the  circuit. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  45 

Bather  an  interesting  anecdote  is  told  of  his  first  adventure 
in  beginning  the  profession  : 

The  next  court  was  at  Washington,  Georgia,  the  place  of  his 
school-boy  days.  There  were  no  railroads  or  public  convey 
ances  between  the  places.  He  had  no  horse,  and  was  too  proud 
to  ask  the  loan  of  one  from  any  of  his  acquaintances  in  the 
town.  The  whole  distance  was  a  little  too  far  for  his  strength, 
should  he  undertake  it  on  foot.  He  walked  to  his  uncle's, 
which  was  about  ten  miles,  or  half  the  distance,  and  but  little 
out  of  the  way — carrying  his  saddle-bags,  containing  a  change 
of  clothes,  upon  his  shoulders.  He  chose  the  cool  of  night 
instead  of  the  heat  of  a  July  day  for  this  undertaking ;  and 
resting  frequently  on  the  stones  of  the  road-side,  sadly  meditated 
in  his  darkened  loneliness  upon  the  deeper  darkness  that  envel 
oped  his  future  fate.  A  horse  was  borrowed  'from  his  uncle 
without  scruple,  and  the  next  day  he  proceeded  on  his  way.  The 
change  of  clothes,  above  mentioned,  consisted  in  part,  of  a  pair  of 
thin,  white,  cotton  pants,  of  cheap  material,  very  suitable  for  the 
season,  and  somewhat  of  the  appearance  of  linen.  That  he 
might  enter  the  town  and  the  court  room  as  decent  as  possible, 
he  dismounted  a  short  distance  from  the  suburbs,  and  doffed 
the  somewhat  worn  unmentionables  with  which  he  set  out,  and 
donned  the  aforesaid-  white  ones  in  their  stead.  Also,  other 
wise  arranged  his  toilet  the  best  he  could,  for  his  first  appear 
ance  as  a  member  of  the  Bar  on  the  circuit.  The  reverse  opera 
tion  was  gone  through  with  on  his  return. 

Such  were  the  straits  to  which  a  sense  of  economy  then  com 
pelled  him  to  resort. 

That  period  of  his  life  was  one  of  sore  apprehension.  He 
was  sickly,  not  able  to  do  manual  labor,  poor,  almost  friendless; 
and  the  brain  that  ached  from  disease  and  was  weary  with  toil, 
was  haunted  by  the  grim  question  of  EXISTENCE  !  Dependent 
entirely  upon  himself,  his  powers  untried,  and  faith  built  upon 
will,  not  ability,  the  great  YES  and  NO  of  all  beings,  resolved 


46  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

for  him  into  the .  problem,  would  he  live  or  die:  if  live,  how? 
Still  he  clung  to  his  people,  his  home,  and  the  graves  of  his 
sires,  with  stronger  attachment  than  even  the  German  boasts 
for  his  own  Fatherland.  No  temptation,  then  or  since,  has  di 
vorced  his  heart  from  the  red,  sterile  hills  of  his  birth-place, 
and  to  all  allurements,  even  when  the  voices  of  home  seem  to 
appeal  to  his  ambition  or  his  interest,  and  bid  him  go ;  his  heart 
seems  to  answer  to  his  people,  as  did  Euth  to  Naomi,  "Entreat 
me  not  to  leave  thee,  to  return  from  following  after  thee ;  for 
whither  thou  goest  I  will  go ;  and  where  thou  lodgest,  I  will 
lodge ;  thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  God  my  God. 
Where  thou  diest  I  will  die,  and  there  will  I  be  buried ;  the 
Lord  do  so  to  me  and  more  also;  if  aught  but  death  part  thee 
and  me." 

Within  ten  (Jays  after  his  admission  to  practice,  he  was  em 
ployed  in  a  very  important  case.  A  wealthy  gentleman  of  high 
position  and  great  influence,  upon  the  death  of  his  son,  had 
been  appointed  guardian  of  the  person  and  property  of  his 
granddaughter,  then  an  infant,  its  mother  being  married  to  a 
second  husband.  In  the  course  of  time,  the  mother  claimed 
possession  of  the  child,  which  claim  was  resisted  by  the  grand 
father,  who  claimed  it  as  legal  guardian.  The  step-father,  wish 
ing  to  please  the  mother,  his  wife,  came  to  the  young  lawyer, 
and  engaged  him  as  counsel  to  set  aside  the  guardianship  ;  other 
lawyers  having  failed,  and  Mr.  Stephens  having,  upon  being 
consulted,  given  his  opinion  that  the  letters  of  guardianship  as 
to  the  person  of  the  child  should  be  revoked,  and  the  mother 
given  charge  of  the  care  and  education  of  her  daughter. 

The  trial  was  before  the  five  judges  of  the  Inferior  Court, 
with  no  jury,  sitting  as  a  Court  of  Ordinary,  upon  motion  to 
set  aside  the  letters  of  guardianship,  so  far  as  related  to  the 
person  of  the  child.  Great  interest  was  manifested  in  the  at 
tempt  of  the  ungainly  lawyer  to  meet  and  foil  Mr.  Jefferies, 
then  the  veteran  of  the  bar  at  that  place,  and  who,  notwith 
standing  his  retirement  from  the  bar,  had  been  prevailed  upon 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  47 

to  reappear  in  this,  the  most  exciting  case  that  had  been  tried 
in  the  county  for  a  number  of  years.  The  result  was,  that  the 
guardianship  was  set  aside,  and  the  child  restored  to  its  natural 
place,  in  the  arms  of  its  mother.  The  triumphant  advocate  at 
once  took  the  place  at  the  bar  he  has  held  ever  since,  and  was 
soon  retained  on  one  side  or  other,  of  every  important  case  tried 
in  his  county. 

A  close  student  always,  he  now  spent  no  idle  time,  and  every 
dollar  he  saved,  went  to  buy  those  tools  of  the  brain,  books, 
which  he  often  read  until  the  gray  hours  of  morning. 

His  county  practice  soon  extended  throughout  the  judicial 
circuit  known  as  the  northern  circuit.  His  acquisitions  in 
legal  lore  made  in  the  first  two  years  after  admission  were  amaz 
ing,  aad  his  rapid  rise  within  the  same  period  to  position  and 
distinction  as  a  lawyer,  was  no  less  amazing  and  wonderful. 
Iri  that  time  he  had  taken  rank  with  the  first  men  in  the  cir 
cuit,  and  was  retained  as  leading  counsel  in  many  of  the  most 
important  causes  both  in  law  and  equity  in  it.  The  wonder  at, 
as  well  as  merit  of  this  extraordinary  rise,  may  be  better 
understood  when  the  character  of  some  of  the  men  with  whom 
he  had  to  cope  is  considered.  They  were  no  pettifogging 
attorneys  or  unskilled  advocates. 

The  bar  of  the  northern  circuit  has  always  been  equal  if 
not  superior  to  any  in  the  State.  This  galaxy  of  talent  never 
shone  brighter  than  it  did  from  1834  to  1836.  It  embraced  in 
its  circle  many  who  would  have  been  pillars  and  ornaments  of 
the  profession  wherever  the  common  law  is  administered.  Some 
of  these  may  be  named — Nathan  0.  Sayre,  Eli  H.  Baxter, 
James  Thomas,  Garnett  Andrews,  Daniel  Chandler,  Eobert 
Toombs,  William  C.  Dawson,  Francis  H.  Cone,  and  Joseph  H. 
Lumpkin. 

Sayre,  Baxter,  and  Thomas,  were  then  in  the  prime  and 
vigor  of  life,  and  building  up  that  substantial  fabric  of  judicial 
reputation  they  have  left  behind  them.  They  .were  all  of  the 
county  of  Hancock.  They  each,  in  turn,  subsequently  occu- 


48  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

pied  the  bench.  They  are  all  now  departed,  but  their  deeds 
live  after  them,  and  their  names  will  not  soon  die. 

Andrews,  Chandler,  and  Toombs,  were  of  "Wilkes.  Andrews 
went  upon  the  bench  on  the  death  of  Judge  Crawford.  This 
position  he  held  for  several  consecutive  terms  of  office,  and  in 
it,  in  the  discharge  of  its  high  duties,  suffered  nothing  by  com 
parison  with  either  his  immediate  illustrious  predecessor,  or 
with  the  renowned  Dooly,  who  occupied  the  same  seat  before 
Crawford. 

Toombs,  whose  reputation  is  now  world-wide,  and  whose 
intellect  is  equal  to  the  greatest  of  this  or  any  other  country, 
was  then  just  beginning  to  win  his  first  laurels  in  forensic  en 
counters — having  been  admitted  four  years  before  by  special 
act  of  the  legislature,  as  he  was  not  of  age  at  the  time. 

Chandler,  the  senior  of  Toombs  by  a  few  years,  though  pos 
sessing  less  of  his  genius  and  power,  had  already  become 
greatly  distinguished  for  his  fascinating  manners,  classical 
scholarship,  elegant  diction,  flowery  rhetoric,  and  commanding 
address  before  the  juries.  He  moved  soon  after  to  Mobile, 
and  became  a  law-partner  of  the  very  distinguished  jurist, 
John  A.  Campbell. 

Davvson  and  Cone  were  of  Greene  county,  and  though  thev 
did  not  reside  in  the  northern  circuit,  yet  they  were  numbered 
with  the  members  of  its  bar,  for  they  attended  the  courts  in 
every  county  in  it. 

Dawson's  fame  at  that  time,  both  as  lawyer  and  legislator, 
was  co-extensive  with  the  State.  He  was  at  that  time  per 
sonally,  perhaps,  the  most  popular  man  in  it.  His  manners 
were  courtly.  In  speaking,  his  action  was  easy  and  graceful. 
He  abounded  with  wit  and  humor,  and  often  put  the  whole 
court-house  in  a  roar  of  laughter  with  his  sallies  of  this  sort. 

Cone  was  widely  different  from  Dawson,  but  by  no  means 
his  inferior  in  any  of  the  essential  requisites  of  a  lawyer.  Like 
his  immediate  rival,  his  reputation  was  already  established  far 
and  near.  Like  him,  also,  he  had  a  vein  of  the  most  exquisite 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  49 

humor.  But  humor  was  not  his  forte  in  the  court-house.  He 
addressed  himself  more  to  the  judge  than  to  the  jury.  Being 
thoroughly  versed  in  the  whole  science  of  the  law,  and  posses 
sing  a  strong,  well-trained,  logical  mind,  no  man  was  ever 
clearer  or  more  brilliant  than  he  often  was  in  the  elucidation 
of  its  most  abstruse  principles. 

These  two  leading  spirits,  who  filled  so  large  a  space  in  the 
sphere  in  which  they  moved  for  so  long  a  time,  were  then  also 
in  their  prime,  and  with  their  brethren  of  Hancock  they  have 
also  departed. 

Lumpkin,  the  last  of  the  galaxy  mentioned,  was,  at  the  time 
we  write  of,  a  resident  of  the  county  of  Oglethorpe.  He  was 
then  in  his  full  glory  as  an  attorney,  advocate,  and  counsellor 
at  law.  And  with  what  splendor  did  that  glory  shine  ?  With 
eloquence  of  the  highest  order  he  combined  the  profoundest 
knowledge  of  the  law  in  all  its  departments — qualities  as  grand 
and  exalted  as  they  are  rare.  He  now  lives  at  Athens,  ripe 
with  honors  and  age.  For  twenty  years  and  more  he  has  been 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 

These,  be  it  remembered,  were  some  of  the  giants  at  the  bar 
with  whom  the  stripling  Stephens  had  to  contend  when  he 
entered  the  arena  of  the  northern  circuit.  All  of  these  were 
men  of  mark  in  their  day,  and  have  left,  deeply  fixed,  their 
impress  upon  the  institutions  of  the  State.  It  was  amongst 
such  men  the  subject  of  our  sketch  took  rank  and  became  a 
peer  within  the  space  of  two  years. 

During  this  period  his  health  was  better  than  it  had  ever 
been  before.  He  had  no  serious  attack  of  disease  of  any  sort 
in  that  time. 

In  August,  1836,  he  met  with  several  old  class-mates  at  the 
annual  commencement  of  the  State  University,  and  they  all 
congratulated  him  on  improved  health.  All  of  them  were 
weighed,  and  his  weight  was  ninety-six  (96)  pounds,  which  was 
more  than  he  had  ever  weighed  before. 

In  1836,  contrary  to  his  expressed  wishes,  he  was  nominated 
4 


50  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

by  his  friends  for  the  lower  branch  of  the  general  assembly 
of  his  State,  and  triumphantly  elected  against  a  bitter  opposi 
tion.  That  opposition  grew  out  of  two  facts.  First,  his  being 
openly  and  decidedly  against  the  doctrine  of  nullification,  which 
was  almost  universally  held  by  the  people  of  the  county.  Second, 
He  had  taken  a  stand  sometime  before  in  a  county  meeting, 
against  the  proposition  brought  forward  by  the  most  popular 
man  in  the  county  (who  had  been  State  Senator  for  years),  for 
the  appointment  of  a  Vigilance  Committee.  The  proposal  was 
to  raise  and  clothe  such  committee  with  full  powers  to  take  up 
and  punish  all  persons  who  might  be  suspected  of  circulating 
incendiary  sentiments  or  doctrines  among  the  slaves,  without 
resorting  to  regular  prosecution  under  the  law.  Such  commit 
tees  had  been  raised  in  several  other  counties  of  the  State,  and 
a  meeting  for  that  purpose  had  been  called  in  Taliaferro.  A 
very  large  audience  was  present.  Mr.  Stephens  was  there.  The 
resolutions  were  submitted  and  about  to  pass,  nem  con.  Mr. 
Stephens  arose  and  opposed  them. 

This  led  to  high  debate.  At  first  the  odds  seemed  to  be 
against  the  youthful  opposer.  He  maintained  his  ground  against 
all  the  array,  with  a  firmness  and  sternness  that  have  ever 
marked  his  course.  He  appealed  to  the  people  with  a  fervor 
that  has  seldom  been  surpassed  by  him — as  they  valued,  prized, 
and  cherished  liberty,  "to  stand  by  the  supremacy  of  the  law." 
Upon  a  vote,  the  resolutions  were  defeated  by  a  very  decided 
majority. 

His  course  gave  rise  to  insinuations  and  charges,  that  he  was 
unsound  upon  the  question  of  slavery.  These,  with  his  anti-nul 
lification  sentiments  were  brought  against  him  in  his  first  can 
vass.  Finding  the  opposition  so  fierce  on  election  day,  he 
mounted  a  work-bench  in  the  court-house  yard,  in  lieu  of  a 
stump,  and  made  what  is  yet  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  most  tell 
ing  speeches  of  his  life. 

The  lack  of  health  was  one  great  reason  of  his  disinclination 
to  accept  office.  The  two  years'  rest  from  disease  was  over; 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  51 

and  on  the  22d  of  the  previous  August  (1836),  he  had  a  severe 
attack  of  bilious  fever.  He  was  badly  salivated,  and  did  not 
recover  sufficiently  to  leave  his  bed  until  the  last  week  in 
September.  The  election  was  the  next  week;  and  when  he 
did  get  out,  he  seemed  scarcely  able  to  walk,  much  less  speak. 
In  spite  of  the  opposition  and  his  own  feeble  health,  he  defeated 
his  highest  competitor  more  than  two  to  one.  At  Milledge- 
ville,  the  State  capital,  during  his  first  session,  he  had  a  severe 
attack  of  pneumonia,  and  did  not  recover  during  all  that 
winter ;  but  notwithstanding  all  this,  his  forensic  talents,  and 
sound  judgment  soon  gave  him  great  weight  and  influence  in 
that  body.  His  was  no  easy  task,  of  taking  rank  among  those  he 
met  as  their  intellectual  equal,  for  the  calibre  of  that  legisla 
ture  was  far  from  mediocrity.  Hon.  Charles  J.  Jenkins,  Hon. 
William  W.  Gordon,  Hon.  Andrew  J.  Miller,  Hon.  'James  A. 
Merriwether,  Hon.  Edward  Y.  Hill,  Judge  Iverson  L.  Harris, 
Hon.  Samuel  W.  Flurnoy,  of  Columbus,  Hon.  Robert  Dough 
erty,  and  other  great  Georgians  were  there,  and  it  was  a  combat 
of  Titans. 

As  an  orator,  in  style  and  manner,  Mr.  Stephens  is  entirely 
original.  He  is  a  model  of  himself)  such  as  it  is,  sui  generis. 
He  has  no  studied  attitude  or  action,  or  measured  phrase.  In 
speaking,  all  his  life,  he  seems  to  have  acted  on  the  idea  formed 
early,  and  which  is  given  in  one  of  a  series  of  letters,  written 
by  him,  during  his  first  session  in  the  legislature,  to  his  friend 
Dr.  Thomas  Foster,  of  Crawfordville  (the  builder  of  the  Foster 
House  referred  to) — a  man  of  rare  intelligence  and  great  worth, 
and  whom  he  often  speaks  of  as  the  Mentor  of  his  early  days. 
In  one  of  these  letters,  now  before  us,  he  says: 

"  I  have,  since  I  came  here,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  words 
are — if  you  please — moral  instruments  capable  of  effecting  much, 
when  properly  applied  and  directed.  And  it  is  altogether  use 
less,  at  any  and  all  times  to  talk,  without  having  in  view  some 
object  to  effect.  In  legislating  in  Georgia,  it  is  waste  of  breath 


52  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

for  a  man  to  talk  about  Greece  and  Rome,  Scipio  and  Hannibal, 
Tyre  and  Carthage,  or  any  of  that  learned  sort  of  lore.  If  one 
indulges  much  in  it,  he  is  soon  looked  upon  as  a  fool,  speaking 
in  an  {  unknown  tongue,'  and  very  properly  so  too.  Eloquence, 
true  eloquence,  is  certainly  in  some  degree  an  art ;  but  in  nothing 
more  than  in  selecting  and  fitting  the  matter  to  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances.  The  whole  generation  of  our  young  orators, 
instead  of  reading  Blair  for  rules,  Scott  and  Addison  for  figures, 
and  Bryon  and  Shakspeare  for  quotations,  had  better  be  study 
ing  their  subject,  and  thinking  to  whom  they  are  going  to  present 
it,  and  how  they  will  most  probably  engage  attention,  and  pro 
duce  conviction  in  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  it  is  presented. 
Success  in  producing  conviction  is  the  object  of  oratory." 

The  first  speech  of  Mr.  Stephens  in  the  legislature,  was  his 
effort  upon  the  subject  of  the  State,  or  Western  and  Atlantic 
railroad,  connecting  what  is  now  Atlanta,  Georgia,  with  Chatta 
nooga,  Tennessee. 

On  the  10th  of  May,  1857,  the  Hon.  Iverson  L.  Harris,  now 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia,  wrote  a  letter  to  Professor 
Williams  Kutherford,  of  the  State  University,  giving  him  a 
history  of  the  State  road,  and  some  incidents  connected  with 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  legislature,  first  authorizing  its 
construction.  The  whole  letter  is  exceedingly  interesting,  but 
for  our  purpose,  we  quote  but  the  following : 

JUDQE  HARRIS  TO  PROFESSOR  RUTHERFORD, 

"  MILLEDGEVILLE,  May  IQth,  185Y. 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR  :—        *  *  *  *  *         * 

The  debate  lingered  for  days,  and  when  every  one  was  wroi^i 
down  and  tired  of  the  name  of  '  Main  Trunk,7  from  under  the 
gallery  a  clear,  shrill  voice,  unlike  that  of  any  man  of  my  ac 
quaintance,  was  heard  saying  'Mr.  Speaker!' 

"  Every  eye  was  turned  to  the  thin,  attenuated  form  of  a  mere 
boy,  with  a  black  gleaming  eye  and  cadaverous  face.  The  atten 
tion  became  breathless,  the  House  was  enchained  for  half  aii 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  53 

hour  b}r  a  new  speaker,  and  one  with  new  views  of  the  question, 
such  as  had  not  been  discussed  or  hinted  at  by  others. 

"  When  he  sat  down  there  was  a  burst  of  applause  from  a  full 
gallery,  and  many  of  us  on  the  floor  joined  in  the  chorus. 

"  That  speech  ivas  electrical!  It  gave  new  life  to  a  dull  debate, 
it  aided  immensely  in  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  survey  of 
the  road,  and  the  appropriation  for  it.  It  was  the  first  and 
maiden  speech  in  the  legislature,  of  that  gentleman. 

"  From  that  hour  he  has  been  a  man  of  mark,  and  now  he  is 
recognized  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  at  Washington,  as  its 
foremost  man. 

"  Need  I  say — that  man  was  Alexander  H.  Stephens." 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

In  the  letter  of  Professor  Rutherford,  giving  the  use  of  the 
letter  from  Judge  Harris,  he  thus  speaks  of  the  subject  himself 
he  then  being  a  boy,  and  occasionally  attending  the  sessions 
of  the  general  assembly. 

"  UNIVERSITY  OP  GEORGIA,  ATHENS,  June  8th,  1866. 
"MR.  HENRY  CLEVELAND,  Augusta,  Ga. 

"  DEAR  SIR  : — I  remember  many  things  which  occurred  during 
that  very  remarkable  session  of  the  Georgia  legislature,  in  the 
winter  of  1836.  Nearly  all  the  men  who  have  made  history  for 
Georgia  were  members  of  that  legislature.  I  remember  the 
circumstances  of  that  very  remarkable  speech  of  Mr.  Stephens 
made  during  this  session,  and  to  which  Judge  I.  L.  Harris  has 
so  ardently  alluded  in  the  letter  I  send  you.  If  I  mistake  not, 
it  was  Mr.  Charles  J.  Jenkins,  then  the  leader  of  the  House,  who 
approached  Mr.  Stephens  at  the  conclusion  of  his  argument,  and 
said  :  '  Sir,  that  speech  will  send  you  to  Congress.' 

"  Georgia  owes  much  to  the  Legislature  of  1836 ;  and  much, 
very  much  to  Mr.  Stephens  and  his  noble  colleagues  for  the  work 
performed  during  that  session.  The  crowning  act  of  the  general 
assembly  was  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  building  of  the 
Western  and  Atlantic  railroad.  One  sprightly  young  man  who 
opposed  the  construction  of  the  road,  facetiously  remarked  that 
'  the  road  would  pass  through  a  country  filled  with  mountains 


54  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

so  steep  that  a  spider  could  not  crawl  up  them.'  If  such 
counsels  had  prevailed,  Cherokee,  Georgia,  instead  of  being  the 
most  populous  and  wealthy  portion  of  the  State,  would  still  be  a 
gymnasium  for  spiders. 

"  The   Western  and   Atlantic   railroad  is   now  the   hope  of 
Georgia,  crippled  as  she  is  in  her  financial  condition.     It  owes  its 
success  to  such  men  as  Mr.  Stephens,  who  composed  the  con 
trolling  power  in  the  legislature  of  1836." 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

In  building  that  road  through  the  mountains,  there  were  great 
obstacles,  both  from  nature  and  men,  and  its  defenders  and  pro 
jectors  ceased  not  from  their  labors  from  1836,  when  it  began, 
to  1848,  when  it  was  completed.  The  appropriation  of  $300,000 
for  the  tunnel  through  the  rock  of  Tunnel  Hill,  in  1847,  about 
finished  the  work.  It  has  been  the  great  source  of  revenue  to 
the  State,  especially  under  the  improvements  of  Governor 
Herschel  Y.  Johnson,  and  the  financial  skill  of  Governor 
Joseph  E.  Brown. 

One  secret  of  Mr.  Stephens'  wonderful  success  is  his  more 
wonderful  memory,  which  supplies  the  material  for  the  power 
of  the  orator  and  the  finished  elegance  of  the  scholar.  The 
mere  weight  of  its  long-garnered  treasures  might  consign  a  less 
perfectly  balanced  mental  organization  to  a  mad-house,  yet  every 
sheaf  of  knowledge  stands  in  its  proper  place,  distinct  and  easy 
of  access,  and  not  a  grain  of  literature,  or  legal  or  political 
lore  is  ever  lost.  His  great  success  as  a  debater  on  the  hust 
ings,  results,  in  a  great  measure,  from  this  source.  Many  a 
gallant  adversary  has  been  quickly  and  completely  unhorsed 
by  one  or  two  sudden  assaults  upon  the  supposed  facts  -upon 
which  their  argument  rested. 

Georgia  is  yet  indebted  to  the  speech  above  alluded  to,  and 
to  the  zeal  and  brain  that  made  a  highway  through  the  fertile 
valleys  of  upper  Georgia,  and  linked .  the  cotton  and  rice  belt 
of  the  seaboard  and  the  gulf  with  the  vast  grain  fields  of  Ten 
nessee  and  the  West.  The  fame  of  that  speech  yet  lives,  and 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  55 

men  yet  tell  how  the  feeling  of  annoyance,  when  the  little  man 
from  Taliaferro  arose,  gave  place  to  the  hush  of  breathless 
attention,  as  his  electrical  utterances  lifted  him  from  the  un 
known 

"  Mere  part  of  a  crowd  " 

to  the  altitude  of  the  statesman  and  the  equality  of  the  great. 
Another  honorable  part  of  his  record  is  as  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Education,  at  a  later  session,  and  his  well-appre 
ciated  services  as  champion  of  the  State  University;  his  Alma 
Mater  just  then  much  needing  his  services.  He  was  also  of 
great  service  to  the  bill  of  Mr.  Lewis,  of  Troup  county,  for  the 
incorporation  of  the  Macon  Female  College.  It  is  believed  to 
be  the  first  institution  of  the  kind  ever  chartered  in  the  world 
for  the  regular  graduation  of  young  ladies  in  the  highest 
branches  of  science.  Mr.  Stephens  refers  to  it  in  his  speech  of 
July  2d,  1859. 

In  April,  1837,  he  was  again  utterly  prostrated  by  disease,  and 
confined  for  months.  When  pronounced  convalescent,  he- was 
so  weak  that  he  could  not  even  move  his  lower  limbs  in  bed.  At 
first  he  had  to  be  lifted  and  carried  from  one  part  of  the  house 
to  another  like  a  child.  The  disease  seemed  to  be  a  general  let 
ting  down  of  the  system.  It  was  the  result  of  over  mental 
working,  the  severe,  and,  for  him,  incredible  labors  of  the  past 
three  years.  He  then  travelled  in  the  mountains  of  Georgia, 
seeking  invigoration  from  the  streams  and  breezes  of  the  hills, 
but  became  a  confirmed  dyspeptic.  He  could  eat  but  very  little, 
and  for  two  or  three  years  probably  did  not  eat  as  much  as  five 
pounds  of  meat  of  any  kind.  The  only  diet  he  could  bear  was 
milk  and  bread. 

In  September,  1837,  he  returned  from  the  county  of  Habers- 
ham,  among  whose  mountains  he  had  spent  the  summer,  and, 
though  not  at  all  well,  was  again  elected  to  the  Legislature,  this 
time  without  any  opposition.  He  was  better  in  the  winter  than 
the  summer,  but  never  well.  In  April,  1838,  he  was  again  at 
tacked  by  his  besetting  malady,  and  was  advised  to  take  a  sea 


56  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

voyage,  which  he  did.  He  went  to  Boston — probably  never 
expecting  to  be  a  State  prisoner  there.* 

From  thence  he  went  through  New  York  to  Saratoga, 
becoming  no  better,  but  worse.  Finally,  in  August,  he  went 
to  the  Green  Briar  White  Sulphur  springs,  in  Virginia. 
These  waters  were  to  him  almost  the  Fountain  of  Youth,  that 
Ponce  de  Leon  sought  so  long,  for  they  seemed  for  awhile  to 
renew  the  vital  powers,  and,  like  a  charm,  arrested  the  rapid 
decline.  In  1889  and  1840,  the  general  bad  health  continued, 
and  during  both  those  years  he  spent  the  most  of  the  summers 
in  the  mountains.  While  absent  in  1838,  Mr.  Eobert  Toombs 
generously  offered  to  attend  to  all  his  law  business,  that  he 
might  travel  and  not  die.  These  two  statesmen,  often  called 
the  Castor  and  Polux  of  the  State,  have  always  been  friends. 

During  the  two  years  we  have  spoken  of — 1839  and  1840 — • 
Mr.  Stephens  kept  up  his  office  business,  but  gave  up  all  reading, 
and  was  too  weak  to  either  walk  well  or  ascend  steps  without  a 
cane.  Many  of  his  declarations  and  court  papers  were  written 
in  bed.  His  brother,  Aaron  G.  Stephens,  of  whom  we  have 
before  spoken,  a  good  business  man,  and  his  senior  in  age, 
attending  to  entering  his  judgments  in  court  when  he  could  not 
attend  in  person.  As  we  have  saicl,  this  brother  is  not  now 
alive,  having  died  in  1843. 

Notwithstanding  his  great  weakness  and  prostration  in  the 
summers  of  1838,  1839,  and  1840,  he  was  elected  to  the  legisla 
ture  in  each  of  those  }^ears,  and  attended  the  sessions  in  the 
winter. 

John  Savage,  Esq.,  thus  speaks  of  an  interesting  portion  of 
his  personal  history  in  the  spring  of  1839 : 

"  In  that  }rear,  Mr.  Stephens  appeared  for  the  first  time  before 
a  public  audience  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  in  his  capacity 
of  delegate  to  the  Commercial  Convention,  composed  of  distin- 


*As  a  singular  coincidence,  he  reached  Boston  harbor,  and  passed  close 
to  Fort  Warren,  on  the  25th  of  May,  1838.  On  the  25th  of  May,  1865, 
he  stopped  there  as  a  prisoner. 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  57 

guished  representatives  from  the  Southern  States  of  the  Union. 
The  convention  assembled  in  the  theatre,  at  that  time  the  most 
commodious  edifice  in  the  city,  for  that  purpose.  The  delegates 
occupied  the  pit,  and  so  many  of  the  boxes  of  the  first  and  second 
tier  as  was  necessary  to  accommodate  them.  The  rest  of  the 
building  was  crowded  to  its  utmost  capacity  by  a  brilliant,  intel 
ligent,  and  fashionable  audience,  composed  of  ladies  and  gentle 
men.  The  subject  under  discussion  was  the  importance  of  a 
direct  trade  between  the  South  and  Great  Britain,  and  the  best 
mode  of  awakening  public  attention  to  the  subject.  On  the  first 
point,  there  was  great  unanimity  in  the  opinions  of  the  conven 
tion  ;  but  on  the  second — the  mode  of  action — the  views  of  mem 
bers  differed  widely,  and  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  as  has  too 
often  been  their  case  in  past  history,  were  opposed  to  each  other. 
General  Hayne,  General  Hamilton,  Major  Filder,  Hon.  William 
C.  Preston,  and  other  distinguished  Carolinians,  had  already 
addressed  the  convention  ki  speeches  of  great  splendor  and  elo 
quence,  advocating  a  particular  line  of  policy.  At  length  an 
individual  arose  in  one  of  the  boxes,  the  tones  of  whose  voice 
were  rich  and  penetrating  as  those  of  the  '  Sweedish  Nightingale.7 
This  personage — who,  however  celebrated  in  Georgia,  was  not  as 
yet  known  in  South  Carolina — was  no  other  than  Alexander  H 
Stephens.  But  'the  hour  and  the  man  had  come,'  and  no  one 
who  heard  that  speech  delivered  can  ever  forget  the  electric  effect 
produced  by  it.  He  had  hardly  commenced  speaking  when  every 
neck  was  extended,  and  every  eye  fixed  in  mute  wonder.  The 
contrast  which  existed  between  his  physical  delicacy  and  his 
intellectual  strength,  between  his  masculine  habit  and  his  melli 
fluous  intonations,  produced  the  utmost  astonishment.  A  feeling 
which  gradually  subsided  into  intense  admiration  of  his  quick 
wit,  his  keen  powers  of  analysis,  his  rapid  generalizations,  and 
his  overwhelming  replies.  It  was  a  bold  proceeding  in  a  stranger 
— though  one  in  whose  aspect  mind  triumphed  over  the  grosser 
elements  of  the  material  frame — to  measure  swords  with  such 
antagonists  as  he  encountered  in  that  assembly  ;  but  it  was  a  stiil 
more  memorable  exploit  to  obtain  as  he  did  the  victory  over  them 
in  argument.  The  triumphant  speech,  in  which  he  had  snatched 


58  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

their  laurels  from  the  most  brilliant  lawyers  of  the  occasion,  was 
the  topic  of  general  comment  and  of  unmeasured  eulogy,  and  he 
himself,  though  a  modest  and  unassuming  young  man,  became, 
wherever  he  appeared,  the  '  observed  of  all  observers.'  The  dele 
gates  collected  from  different  and  distant  portions  of  the  South, 
and  who  were  enabled  for  the  first  time  to  appreciate  his  singular 
merits,  on  their  return  to  their  several  homes,  contributed,  by 
their  enthusiastic  account  of  his  success,  to  extend  his  fame  to 
the  remotest  parts  of  the  country." 

An  amusing  anecdote  is  told  of  that  visit  to  the  beautiful 
"city  between  the  rivers."  Being  fatigued  on  his  arrival  at  the 
hotel,  Mr.  Stephens  availed  himself  of  a  comfortable  sofa  or 
lounge,  and  made  the  situation  as  easy  as  possible.  His  two 
travelling  companions  were  Mr.  Thomas  Chafin  and  Dr.  John 
M.  Anthony,  merchants,  who  had  been  frequent  guests  of  the 
house.  The  good  lady  of  the  house  came  in  just  then,  and 
found  the  two  last-named  gentlemen  still  standing,  and  what 
she  took  for  some  country  boy  occupying  the  easy  lounge.  Her 
manner  was  perfectly  kind  and  somewhat  patronising,  as  she 
said  to  him,  "My  son,  let  the  gentlemen  have  this  seat."  The 
"  gentlemen"  were  amused,  and  the  kind  landlady  much  annoyed, 
when  she  afterward  found  that  her  "  son"  was  the  important  per 
sonage  of  her  house,  and  very  soon  the  lion  of  the  whole  city. 

In  1841,  Mr.  Stephens  was  not  engaged  in  politics,  having 
positively  declined  reelection  to  the  legislature.  His  health 
grew  some  better,  and  he  did  a  very  large  business.  He  still 
suffered  greatly  from  dyspepsia,  and  could  eat  but  few  articles 
of  food.  He  suffered  from  horrible  headaches;  these  had 
attended  him  all  his  life.  In  1842,  he  was  elected  to  the  State 
Senate,  and  the  labors  of  that  session  were,  opposition  to  the 
Central  Bank,  and  an  active  interest  in  the  questions  of  internal 
improvements  and  in  advocacy  of  a  measure  for  dividing  the 
State  into  Congressional  districts  The  great  debate  of  the 
session  was  on  Federal  Eelations,  upon  the  Eeport  of  the 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Eepublic.  Mr.  Stephens  was 


ALEXANDEK   H.    STEPHENS.  59 

not  a  member  of  the  committee,  but  at  the  request  of  the 
minority,  drew  up  their  report.  This  is  given  in  full  in  this 
collection,  as  it  embraces  the  principles  and  doctrines  on  which 
the  Whig  party  organized  in  Georgia,  on  the  questions  that 
then  divided  the  Whigs  and  Democrats  in  the  Union.  It  is 
almost  needless  to  say,  that  Mr.  Stephens  took  the  lead  in 
debate  and  added  to  his  reputation  as  orator  and  statesman. 
Quite  an  array  of  talent  was  in  the  Senate  that  year :  Andrew  J. 
Miller,  of  Kichmond ;  K.  Gr.  Foster,  of  Morgan  ;  Solomon  Cohen, 
of  Savannah ;  Alexander  Lawson,  of  Burke,  and  James  M. 
Kelly,  first  reporter  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  among  them. 
We  have  been  informed  that  Mr.  Pettigrew,  the  distinguished 
Carolinean,  was  there,  and  spoke  of  the  oratorical  and  logical 
displays  of  Mr.  Stephens  on  that  occasion  in  the  highest  terms. 
Some  writer  has  said  of  him  at  that  period,  "  He  distinguished 
himself  both  in  debate  and  in  the  unostentatious  but  most  im 
portant  task  of  forwarding  the  public  business.  It  is  rare  that 
a  man  possessing  a  high  order  of  oratorical  talent,  has  those 
habits  of  indefatigable  application  and  perserving  industry  so 
necessary  in  the  committee  room  ;  yet  in  Mr.  Stephens,  these 
great  and  useful  qualities  are  admirably  harmonized.  A  matter 
entrusted  to  his  care,  either  officially  or  by  friends,  is  always 
carefully  examined,  and  never  neglected."  In  April,  1842,  he 
had  a  severe  attack  of  sickness,  and  at  that  time  it  was  thought 
he  had  consumption.  He  was  laid  up  all  summer,  and  for  six 
weeks  did  not  leave  his  room.  His  pulse  was  one  hundred  and 
twenty  beats  to  the  minute  the  most  of  the  time,  expectorations 
copious,  his  breast  and  side  blistered  again  and  again ;  being 
thus  kept  raw  for  weeks  at  a  time.  The  disease  was  finally 
pronounced  an  abscess  of  the  liver,  which  broke  and  found 
vent  through  the  lungs.  The  election  to  the  State  Senate  was 
in  October  (1842),  and  after  the  discharge  of  the  abscess,  his 
health  was  for  a  time  better  than  ever,  since  1836.  In  1843, 
the  year  of  his  first  nomination  to  Congress,  his  health  was 
better  than  it  had  been  for  several  years.  He  spent  the  summer 


60  ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS. 

in  upper  Georgia,  and  there  opened  the  canvass  which  was  the 
most  interesting  of  his  life.  When  he  accepted  the  nomination, 
which  was  almost  forced  upon  him,  he  had  little  hope  of  suc 
cess  ;  at  the  election  of  the  year  before,  the  opposite  party 
having  a  majority  of  two  thousand.  Hon.  Mark  A.  Cooper, 
had  been  nominated  by  his  party  to  run  for  governor,  and 
had  resigned  his  seat  in  Congress  for  that  purpose.  Mr. 
Stephens  became  a  candidate  to  fill  that  vacancy,  being 
nominated  without  his  knowledge  or  consent  at  the  time.  At 
the  urgent  entreaties  of  friends  he  accepted  and  went  into  the 
canvass. 

The  race  was  made  on  the  general  ticket  system,  that  is,  the 
State  was  not  then  divided  into  Congressional  districts.  The 
same  ticket  was  voted  for  by  the  respective  parties  throughout 
the  State.* 

In  that  canvass  he  met  many  of  the  leading  men  of  the 
State,  of  the  opposite  party,  in  politics  in  discussion.  The 
debates  had  an  unusual  and  wonderful  effect  upon  the  popular 
mind.  Full  accounts  were  given  of  them  in  the  newspapers 
and  circulated  through  the  State.  During  the  canvass,  the 
"  Minority  Eeport  of  the  State  Senate  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Eepublic,"  alluded  to  before,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Stephens 
while  in  the  Senate  of  Georgia,  1842,  was  the  main  text  as  to 
Federal  relations.  It  was  the  first  time  that  the  "Whig  party 
of  Georgia  had  organized  on  any  definite  principles.  The 
most  important  discussions  were  those  at  Cassville,  with  Hon. 
William  H.  Stiles ;  at  Eome  and  Chatoogaville,  with  Hon.  John 

*  The  following  is  a  transcript  of  the  first  ticket  ever  put  in  the  ballot- 
box  for  Mr.  Stephens  when  a  candidate  for  the  State  Legislature,  and  is 
interesting  also,  as  illustrating  that  general  ticket  system  of  which  we 
are  speaking: 

STATE  RIGHTS  TICKET. 

n  •       7   f  Alford,  Black,  Colquit,  Dawson, 

Congressional  j  Habersham?  Jacks2n,  King,  Nesbit. 

ry,   ,    T     •  7   ,          (FOR  SENATE — Gresham. 

State  Legislature,  j         REPKESENTATIVEs-Stephens,  Darden. 


ALEXANDER    IT.   STEPHENS.  61 

H.  Lumpkin ;  at  Daholonega,  with  Hon.  Solomon  Cohen  ;  at 
Canton,  with  Hon.  Howell  Cobb ;  at  Newnan,  with  Hon.  "Wal 
ter  T.  Colquitt ;  and  finally  at  Jackson  with  his  competitor,  Hon. 
James  H.  Starke. 

The  debate  with  Hon.  Walter  T.  Colquitt,  United  States 
Senator,  which  took  place  in  the  latter  part  of  September  of 
that  year,  was,  in  many  respects,  the  most  important  of  the 
canvass.  The  fame  of  it  spread  far  and  wide ;  and  it  is  often 
spoken  of  to  this  day.  There  never  was  any  authentic  report 
of  it ;  but  many  incidents  are  even  yet  graphically  set  forth  by 
some  of  the  survivors  who  witnessed  it.  Judge  Colquitt  was 
then  at  the  head  of  his  party.  He  was  a  man  of  rare  ability, 
of  great  eloquence,  and  generally  deemed  irresistible  before 
the  people.  It  was  reported  that  he  had  said,  upon  hearing  of 
Mr.  Stephens'  triumphs  over  others  in  the  up-country,  "that 
his  hands  itched  to  get  hold  of  him." 

When  it  was  known  that  Mr.  Stephens  had  made  an  appoint 
ment  to  speak  at  Newnan,  the  judge  was  sent  for  to  meet  him. 
He  resided  at  La-Grange,  about  thirty  miles  distant.  He 
came  fresh  and  vigorous  for  the  contest.  Mr.  Stephens  was  jaded, 
and  seemed  hardly  able  to  stand  up  for  an  hour,  much  less  to 
break  a  lance  with  the  Richard  Coeur-de-lion  of  Georgia. 

His  friends  asked  him  not  to  go  into  the  discussion — not  to 
allow  the  judge  to  speak — to  claim  the  day  as  his  own.  The 
truth  was,  as  they  admitted  afterward,  they  were  afraid  the 
discussion  would  result  in  the  complete  overthrow  of  their 
cause.  The  county  had  been  nearly  equally  divided  for  several 
years.  Twice  within  a  few  years  there  had  been  a  tie  in  the 
election  of  County  Senator. 

Mr.  Stephens,  however,  insisted  on  giving  the  other  side  a 
"  showing"  in  the  person  of  any  one  who  might  desire  to  be 
heard. 

The  terms  were  therefore  soon  agreed  upon  between  himself 
and  the  judge,  while  the  vast  crowd  were  assembling  at  the 
place  of  speaking.  Both  sides  had  come  out  in  full  strength  ; 


62  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

the  one  greatly  elated,  "his  own  as  much  depressed  by  un 
pleasant  forebodings.  The  champion  of  the  one  was  known 
and  literally  at  home  on  his  own  tourney  ground ;  the  other, 
a  stranger — nothing  known  of  him  beyond  the  report  of  others, 
and  his  personal  appearance  gave  no  assurance  of  the  truth  of 
that. 

Without  attempting  at  this  time  to  give  any  thing  of  a 
general  sketch  of  the  discussion  which  ensued,  either  in  rela 
tion  to  order,  programme,  or  the  leading  topics  introduced,  we 
will  only  present  one  of  those  graphic  incidents  alluded  to. 

As  the  story  goes,  a  certain  gentleman  of  the  county,  who 
had  been  a  member  of  the  legislature  with  Mr.  Stephens,  had 
been  looking  over  the  Journals  of  the  House  for  votes  of 
Mr.  Stephens  which  he  thought  might  be  used  against  him 
before  the  people.  These  he  thought  he  had  found,  and  dog 
eared  the  book  at  the  proper  places,  and  presented  it  to  the 
judge  to  use  in  the  course  of  his  speech.  The  votes  selected 
were  several  given  in  the  legislature  by  Mr.  Stephens; 
against  bills  providing  pensions  for  Georgia  soldiers  who 
served  in  the  then  late  Creek  war,  and  for  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  some  who  had  fallen  in  battle.  One  vote,  against 
paying  the  men  attached  to  Gen.  Charles  H,  Nelson's  com 
mand,  in  his  well  known  Florida  expedition,  and  others. 

Judge  Colquitt,  using  the  journal  thus  furnished  him,  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment,  brought  these  votes  out  against  his  antag 
onist,  with  a  most  telling  effect  before  the  crowd.  No  man 
then  (as  now)  could  look  for  popular  favor  who  was  not  a 
friend  to  the  soldier  and  the  soldiers'  widow  and  orphans. 
The  disclosures  seemed  to  put  Mr.  Stephens  in  a  bad  predica 
ment  ;  his  friends  were  greatly  alarmed ;  some  hung  their 
heads,  while  others  actually  quitted  the  locality. 

Mr.  Stephens,  in  rising  to  reply,  came  at  the  senator  with 
one  of  his  bold  dashes.  "  The  bill  for  Georgia  to  pension  her 
own  soldiers,  he  had  voted  against  in  the  legislature.  The 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  whose  common  cause  these 


ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS.  63 

men  had  fought  or  died,  had  already  provided  pensions  for 
them  or  their  families.  Did  the  senator  not  know  this  ?  Was 
it  right  that  Georgia  should  pension  her  own  soldiers  who  had 
become  disabled  in  the  cause,  not  of  the  State,  but  of  all  the 
States  ?  It  was  not  because  he  '  opposed  the  pension,  but  was 
opposed  to  its  payment  by  the  State.  Would  the  senator  arise 
before  that  audience  and  say  that  it  was  right  for  Georgia  to 
pay  the  pensions  of  her  soldiers  while  she  was  contributing 
her  portion  to  pay  the  pensions  of  the  soldiers  of  all  the  other 
States  ?  He  was  not  opposed  to  the  pension,  but  if  the  people 
would  elect  him  to  Congress,  he  would  see  that  the  persons 
who  deserved  pensions  received  them,  afld  from  the  right 
source,  too !" 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  Nelson  troops,  he  said  "  he  did  vote 
as  stated."  He  then  picked  up  the  Journal  of  the  House,  and 
read  what  he  had  voted  against.  It  was  a  bare  resolution,  ap 
propriating  money.  He  then  turned  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
State,  which  provides  against  the  appropriation  of  money  from 
the  treasury,  save  by  bill  passed  in  proper  form,  after  three 
readings  in  each  house.  His  vote  against  the  measure  was 
because  it  was  unconstitutional.  He  then  turned  to  another 
part  of  the  journal,  in  which  it  appeared  that  the  same  measure 
had  been  introduced  by  bill,  and  showed  that  he  had  then 
voted  for  it. 

Then  he  picked  up  the  Senate  Journal,  which  he  had  quietly 
sent  for  while  Senator  Colquitt  was  speaking,  and,  turning  upon 
him,  said,  '•'  Whether  my  vote  was  right  or  wrong,  it  was  just 
as  Senator  Colquitt's  had  been  on  the  same  resolution.  He  was 
in  the  State  Senate  at  the  same  session,  the  same  resolution 
was  voted  on,  and  Mr.  Colquitt  voted  in  the  Senate  as  I  did  in 
the  House,  and  thus  it  appears  in  the  Journal." 

At  this  point,  the  tables  being  so  suddenly  and  completely 
turned,  the  whole  Whig  side,  so  depressed  before,  burst  forth 
into  uproarious  applause.  This  was  redoubled  when  a  friend  of 
Mr.  Stephens  reapplied  the  remark  of  the  senator,  and  shouted — 


64  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHEN'S. 

"  Judge,  your  hands  itch  to  let  him  go  now,  don't  they  ?" 

The  result  of  the  speech  was  the  triumphant  election  of  the 
entire  Whig  ticket  in  the  county  a  few  weeks  afterward,  by 
the  largest  majority  given  for  any  party  there  in  many  years. 
No  one  in  that  section  doubted  Mr.  Stephens'  powers  after  that. 
He  met  Judge  Colquitt  repeatedly  on  the  stump  in  after  years, 
but  nothing  ever  occurred  on  these  occasions  to  mar  the  friend 
ship  between  them.  In  all  passages  at  arms  with  him  Mr. 
Stephens  proved  a  Eoland  for  an  Oliver.  Judge  Colquitt 
is  said  to  have  remarked  after  their  last  discussion,  which 
took  place  in  Forsyth,  Monroe  county,  in  1848,  "  No  man  ever 
can  make  any  thiifg  out  of  Stephens  on  the  stump." 

But  we  return  to  our  narrative.  The  result  of  that  Con 
gressional  election  was  Mr.  Stephens'  triumphant  return  by 
over  three  thousand  majority. 

On  the  day  after  his  arrival  in  "Washington  City,  after  his 
election  to  Congress,  he  was  taken  ill  again,  and  came  near 
dying.  It  was  several  weeks  before  he  was  able  to  leave  his 
room.  It  was  during  that  attack  that  he,  for  the  first  time, 
was  put  upon  the  use  of  nitric  acid  as  an  hepatic. 

On  his  entrance  in  Congress,  his  right  to  a  seat  was  ques 
tioned,  and  became  a  matter  of  contest,  from  the  following  state  ol 
facts :  A  preceding  Congress  had  passed  a  law  providing  that 
elections  to  Congress,  in  all  the  States,  should  be  by  Districts, 
and  not  by  General  Ticket,  as  some  of  the  States  had  always 
elected  them.  Four  States,  Georgia  included,  had  failed  to 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  act.  Georgia  soon  did  so,  but 
not  until  after  the  election  we  have  spoken  of.  The  question 
was,  whether  delegates  of  States  so  elected,  should  be  admitted 
as  members. 

The  committee  on  elections  reported  in  favor  of  their  admission 
to  seats,  and  submitted  a  resolution  declaring  the  act  providing 
for  the  Districting  of  the  States  to  be  unconstitutional  and 
void. 

Mr.  Stephens,  in  his  speech,  held  the  act  to  be  constitutional. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  65 

This,  to  some,  presented  strange  inconsistencies.  What  he 
said  on  the  subject,  and  on  his  own  position  in  relation  to  that 
question,  will  be  seen  from  the  speech  then  delivered,  which 
was  his  first  in  Congress,  and  which  will  be  found  in  full  in 
this  collection. 

We  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  insert  in  this  place,  two 
extracts  from,  its  last  pages,  which  are  valuable  as  a  clear  and 
concise  definition  of  the  relative  powers  of  the  States  and  the 
United  States  Government,  and  presenting  a  vivid  picture  of 
the  dangers  of  party  power,  and  the  necessity  of  all  the  checks 
and  balances  by  which  human  wisdom  restrains  human  passion. 

*  #  *  *  ^       *  * 

11  The  majority  of  the  Committee  of  Elections,  in  their  report, 
which  is  now  under  consideration,  affirm  that  the  '  second  section 
of  the  act  of  apportionment  is  an  attempt,  by  the  introduction 
of  a  new  principle,  to  subvert  the  entire  system  of  legislation 
adopted  by  the  several  States  of  the  Union,  and  to  compel  them 
to  conform  to  certain  rules  established  by  Congress  for  their 
government.' 

"  Sir,  I  cannot  agree  with  the  committee  in  opinion  that  such 
was  either  the  object  of  the  act  in  question,  or  can,  in  any  v?&y 
be  its  consequence.  If  so,  I  should  be  the  last  to  advocate  the 
measure.  I  consider  myself  as  one  of  those  who  hold  the  doctrine 
that  the  permanency  of  our  institutions  can  only  be  preserved 
by  confining  the  action  of  the  State  and  Federal  governments 
each  to  its  own  proper  sphere  ;  and  that,  while  there  should  be 
no  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  the  States  by  this  Govern 
ment,  there  should  also,  on  their  part,  be  no  disobedience  or  failure 
to  perform  their  duties  according  to  the  terms  of  the  constitu 
tional  compact." 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

11  Sir,  it  is  the  most  equal  system.  It  is  the  most  republican. 
It  gives  every  section  of  the  State  a  representative.  It  gives 
the  minority  in  the  State  a  voice  in  the  National  Councils.  It 
increases  the  responsibility  of  the  representative  to  his  constitu 
ents,  and  better  enables  the  constituents,  from  personal  acquaint- 
5 


66  ALEXANDEK   H.   STEPHENS. 

ance  and  intercourse,  to  judge  correctly  of  the  man  to  whom  they 
confide  the  important  trust  of  legislating  for  them.  But  I  can 
not  enumerate  the  advantages  of  this  system  at  this  time;  I 
will  barely,  however,  add  that,  if  from  no  other  consideration,  I 
should  be  in  favor  of  it  from  its  conservative  tendency.  Under 
its  operation,  parties  in  the  different  States  are  more  nearly 
balanced  against  themselves,  and  their  violence  is  more  nearly 
neutralized  by  its  counteraction.  This  tends  very  much  to  check 
that  high  degree  of  excitement,  which  otherwise  wrould  prevail  on 
many  questions,  and  might  be  most  deleterious  in  its  consequences. 
To  be  useful  and  salutary,  laws  must  have  some  continuance  and 
stability.  But  if  the  opposite  principle  should  prevail,  or,  if  even 
the  four  larger  States  in  the  Union  should  adopt  the  general- 
ticket  mode  of  election,  who  is  so  careless  an  observer  of  men 
and  things  as  not  to  see  the  consequences  that  would  result  ? 

"  The  representatives  from  each  of  these  States,  instead  of 
being  divided  as  they  now  are,  so  as  almost  to  balance  each 
other  in  party  strength,  would  most  probably  all  be  on  the  same 
side  of  the  question ;  and  might,  perhaps,  be  elected  by  only  a 
few  hundred  majority  in  their  respective  States ;  and  to  the  next 
Congress  another  delegation,  equal  in  number  and  equally 
divided  on  the  other  political  side,  might  be  returned  by  about 
as  large  a  majority  the  other  way.  The  effect  would  be  an  entire 
change  of  measures ;  for  the  past  admonishes,  and  the  present 
speaks  in  language  not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  party  rules 
every  thing. 

"  Amongst  the  dangers  to  which  our  system  of  government 
is  exposed,  I  consider  as  not  the  least,  the  effects  upon  the 
public  interests  of  the  country  of  those  fearful  shocks  produced 
by  the  sudden  change  of  such  large  party  majorities  upon  this 
floor.  The  human  system,  in  its  soundest  health  and  fullest 
vigor  and  strength,  cannot  long  sustain  its  healthful  action 
against  quick  transitions  from  the  extremes  of  temperature. 
The  most  deeply  laid  and  substantially  built  of  human  edifices 
cannot  stand  amidst  the  oscillations  of  an  unsteady  earth ;  nor 
can  the  government  of  a  free  people,  the  noblest  of  all  human 
structures,  remain  firm,  if  its  elements  and  foundation  are  sub- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  67 

ject  to  constant  vibrations.  Its  basis  is  public  opinion ;  and  the 
elements  of  the  human  mind  are  not  unlike  those  of  the  atmos 
phere  about  us — which,  however  still,  and  calm,  and  quieted  to 
day,  may  be  roused  into  the  whirlwind  to-morrow.  And  as  the 
mild  air  we  breathe,  when  put  into  commotion,  assumes  all  the 
power  and  terrific  force  of  the  tornado,  laying  waste  and  in  ruin 
every  thing  in  its  desolating  sweep  ;  so  with  the  passions,  preju 
dices,  and  ambition  of  men,  when  excited  and  aroused  into 
factious  strife  :  without  reason  or  argument  to  control  their  ac 
tion,  every  thing  relating  to  order,  right,  law,  or  constitution,  is 
equally  disregarded :  and  government  itself  cannot  be  saved 
from  its  ruthless  destruction.  Wise  legislation  should  always 
guard  against  every  thing  tending  to  promote  such  excitements. 
It  was  in  this  view  of  this  subject,  and  to  guard,  as  far  as  possi 
ble,  against  the  liability  of  such  results,  that  the  same  wise 
statesman — the  pure  patriot,  the  sage  of  Montpelier — to  whom 
I  have  before  alluded,  while  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  was 
before  the  American  people,  urged  upon  them  the  necessity  of 
establishing  such  checks  and  restraints  in  their  government  as 
would  be  a  '  defence  for  them  against  their  own  temporary  errors 
and  delusions' — assuring  them  that,  if  the  people  of  Athens  had 
possessed  such  provident  safeguards  for  their  protection,  '  they 
might  have  escaped  the  indelible  reproach  of  decreeing  to  the 
same  citizens  the  hemlock  on  one  day  and  statues  the  next.' " 

Some  of  Mr.  Stephens'  political  enemies  afterward  stated 
(for  the  purpose  of  doing  him  political  injury)  that  Hon.  John 
Quincy  Adams,  upon  the  conclusion  of  that  speech,  approached 
and  tendered  his  congratulations.  The  statement  was  not  true. 
The  Massachusetts  statesman  did,  however  (contrary  to  his 
usual  habit),  listen  with  the  most  marked  attention,  and  was  re 
ported  to  have  spoken  favorably  of  the  effort. 

In  this  connection,  the  following  reference  to,  and  evidence 
of,  the  kind  feeling  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Stephens  may 
not  be  inappropriate : 

Among  other  interesting  mementos  of  Mr.  Stephens'  long 


68  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

political  life,  is  a  copy  of  the  United  States  Album,  arranged 
by  J.  Franklin  Keigrt,  of  Pennsylvania.  Besides  its  National 
and  State  emblems  and  illustrations,  together  with  the  engraved 
autographs  of  the  John  Tyler  administration,  Supreme  Court, 
and  Congress,  it  contains  the  written  autographs  of  many  of 
Mr.  Stephens'  friends. 

Among  them  is  a  short  poem,  more  remarkable  from  its  dis 
tinguished  author  than  its  own  excellence.  The  writing  plain, 
but  cramped,  and  part  of  the  ink  faded  brown,  while  part  re 
mains  black,  as  if  written  with  two  kinds,  The  darker  parts 
probably  mark  a  fresh  dip  into  the  inkstand. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  production.  Mr.  Stephens 
has  frequently  been  addressed  in  verse,  generally  when  some 
lady  admirer  of  a  great  speech  thought  prose  too  tame  to  ex 
press  the  feelings.  Some  of  the  best  are  lost ;  but  we  may 
copy  one  or  two  that  yet  linger  between  the  pages  of  heavy 
books : 

"TO   ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS,    ESQ.,    OF    GEORGIA. 

"  Say,  by  what  sympathetic  charm, 

What  mystic  magnet's  secret  sway 
Drawn  by  some  unresisted  arm 
We  come  from  regions  far  away  ? 

"  From  North  and  South,  from  East  and  West, 

Here  in  the  People's  Hall  we  meet, 
To  execute  their  high  behest 

In  council  and  communion  sweet. 

"  We  meet  as  strangers  in  this  hall, 

But  when  our  task  of  duty's  done, 
We  blend  the  common  good  of  all 
And  melt  the  multitude  in  one. 

"  As  strangers  in  this  hall  we  met ; 
But  now  with  one  united  heart, 
Whate'er  of  life  awaits  us  yet, 
In  cordial  friendship  let  us  part. 

"JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 

•'  II.  R.  U,  S,,  14  June,  1844.  of  Quincy,  Massachusetts," 


ALEXANDER    H.   STEPHENS.  69 

All  this  time,  we  have  spoken  of  Mr.  Stephens  only  as  to  his 
external  life,  "  as  others  saw  him,"  and  not  of  that  inner  life 
which  the  angels  of  God  recorded,  nor  of  that  benevolent  life 
in  which  mortals  can  most  resemble  the  Man  Immortal  who 
"went  about  doing  good,"  nor  yet  of  his  social  life,  which  was 
building  up  for  him  friends,  fastei  than  his  finished  periods 
and  brilliant  eloquence  did  admirers,  and  creating  a  love  for 
the  man,  that  will  outlast  the  fame  of  the  statesman,  even  as 
the  rewards  of  God  outlive  the  applause  of  multitudes.  He 
never  was  ambitious,  and  probably  the  old  Sunday-school 
opinion  that  "Aleck  was  a  good  boy,"  was  worth  all  the  homage 
and  flattery  with  which  the  world  bespatters  its  favorites.  He 
likes  the  one  and  permits  the  other,  prizing  most 

"That  heartfelt  joy, 
Which  nothing  earthly  gives,  or  can  destroy." 

He  has  many  souvenirs  of  friendship,  that  are  evidence  of  how 
others  than  ourselves  appreciate  his  moral  and  social  worth ; 
but  after  all,  there  is  no  process  by  which  we  can  photograph 
the  soul ;  and  if,  when  this  imperfect  sketch  is  finished,  the 
noblest  feelings  and  emotions  of  the  man  remain  unmentioned, 
it  is  because  such  things  belong  not  to  human  records  but  are 
locked  up  in  the  memory  of  God.  Therefore  we  continue  as 
we  began. 


70  ALEXANDEK   H.   STEPHENS. 


III. 

POSITION  IN   RELATION  TO  POLITICAL  PAETIES. 

ALWAYS  STATES-EIGHTS — NEVER  PARTIZAN — AGAINST  THE 
POLICY  OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR,  AND"  THE  ACQUISITION  OF 
TERRITORY  BY  CONQUEST — A  CONSTITUTIONAL  UNION  MAN 
THROUGHOUT. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  was  brought  up  in  the  school  of 
State  rights.  The  State  organization  in  which  he  entered  pub 
lic  life,  was  formed  on  the  13th  day  of  November,-  1833. 
With  that  party,  and  with  the  men  who  constituted  that  organi 
zation,  he  cast  his  first  vote  for  Joel  Crawford  for  Governor  of 
the  State,  in  1833.  In  1836  he  voted  for  Hugh  L.  White  for 
President,  and  was  in  favor  of  the  State  standing  by  the  nomi 
nation  of  Governor  Troup  for  President  in  1840,  and  support 
ing  him  for  that  office,  although  there  was  no  hope  of  his 
election.  When,  however,  the  party  resolved  to  vote  for  Har 
rison,  he,  as  a  choice  between  the  two  candidates  then  pre 
sented,  neither  of  whom  was  entirely  acceptable,  resolved  to 
vote  for  General  Harrison.  In  like  manner  he  voted  for  Henry 
Clay  in  1844,  and  gave  him  a  zealous  support  against  Mr.  Polk, 
notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  Mr.  Clay  to  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  which  measure  Mr.  Stephens  favored.  No  direct 
question  of  State  Rights  was  involved  in  this  election. 

Mr.  Stephens  had  long  been  in  favor  of  the  annexation  or 
the  acquisition  of  Texas,  or  rather  the  incorporation  of  that 
republic  or  State  into  our  Union,  and  had  advocated  a  resolu 
tion  to  that  effect  in  the  State  legislature  as  early  as  1838  or 
1839.  He  opposed  the  John  Tyler  treaty  of  184-1,  but  advo 
cated  the  measure  proposed  by  Milton  Brown,  of  Tennessee, 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  71 

which,  was  ultimately  adopted,  and  by  which  Texas  came  in 
as  a  State.  That  plan  of  Milton  Brown  was  drawn  up  and  pre 
sented  by  him  only  after  repeated  consultations  with  Mr.  Ste 
phens,  who  materially  aided  (as  he  states  in  the  speech  of 
July  2,  1859)  in  the  formation  of  the  plan,  as  in  its  passage. 
We  give  in  full,  in  this  volume,  Mr.  Stephens'  speech  on  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  delivered  January  25th,  1845 ;  and  the 
following  is  the  explanatory  note,  and  copy  of  those  famed 
resolutions,  which  accompanied  and  were  printed  with  that 
speech. 

"  For  the  information  of  those  of  iny  constituents  who  have  not 
seen  a  history  of  the  proceeding  when  the  vote  came  to  be  taken, 
it  may  not  be  improper  to  state  that  several  of  the  propositions 
alluded  to  in  the  foregoing  speech  were  offered  in  the  Committee 
of  the.  "\Vhole,  and  were  each  successively  rejected;  and  against 
each  of  them  I  voted  in  their  order.  At  length,  Mr.  Milton 
Brown,  a  Whig  member  from  the  State  of  Tennessee,  presented 
his  plan,  to  which  reference  is  also  made  in  the  speech  ;  and  for 
this  myself  and  seven  other  Southern  Whigs  voted,  and  it  was 
carried  in  the  committee  by  a  vote  of  109  to  99,  and  was  finally 
passed  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of  120  to  98.  Had  myself  and  the 
other  seven  Whigs  referred  to,  voted  differently  upon  this  plan 
in  the  committee,  it  would  likewise  have  been  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  101  to  101,  and  no  plan  would  have  been  agreed  upon.  It  was 
not  until  the  party  so  largely  in  the  majority  found  that  they 
could  do  nothing  with  their  favorite  schemes,  that  they  consented, 
or  rather  were  reluctantly  forced,  to  take  the  Whig  measure  or 
none.  That  measure  embraced  the  terms  upon  which  the 
Southern  Whigs  had  put  the  question,  from  the  beginning.  It 
provides  for  the  admission  of  Texas  as  a  State,  without  the 
assumption  of  her  debt,  and  with  a  settlement  of  the  slave  ques 
tion.  A  copy  of  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Brown  are  appended. 

"ALEX.  H.  STEPHENS. 
"WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  llth  of  February,  1845." 

Resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  BROWN,  of  Tennessee,  as  adopted 
by  the  House . 


72  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in  Con 
gress  assembled,  That  Congress  doth  consent  that  the  territory 
properly  included  within,  and  rightfully  belonging  to,  the  Republic 
of  Texas,  may  be  erected  into  a  new  State,  to  be  called  the  State 
of  Texas,  with  a  republican  form  of  government,  to  be  adopted 
by  the  people  of  said  Republic,  by  deputies  in  convention  assem 
bled,  with  the  consent  of  the  existing  Government,  in  order  that 
the  same  may  be  admitted  as  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

SECTION  2.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  foregoing 
consent  of  Congress  is  given  upon  the  following  conditions,  and 
with  the  following  guarantees,  to  wit : 

1.  Said   State  to  be   formed,  subject  to   the  adjustment  by 
this   Government  of  all  questions  of  boundary  that  may  arise 
with  other  Governments ;  and  the  Constitution  thereof,  with  the 
proper  evidence  of  its  adoption  by  the  people  of  said  Republic 
of  Texas,  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  be  laid   before   Congress  for  its  final  action,  on  or 
before  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
forty-six. 

2.  Said  State,  when  admitted  into  the  Union,  after  ceding  to 
the   United    States   all   public  edifices,  fortifications,  barracks, 
ports  and  harbors,  navy  and  navy  yards,  docks,  magazines,  arms, 
armaments,  and  all  other  property  and  means  pertaining  to  the 
public  defence  belonging  to  said  Republic  of  Texas,  shall  retain 
all  the  public  funds,  debts,  taxes,  and  dues  of  every  kind  which 
may  belong  to,  or  be  due  and  owing,  said  Republic  ;  and  shall  also 
retain  all  the  vacant  and  unappropriated  lands  lying  within  its 
limits,  to  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  debts  and  liabilities 
of  said  Republic  of  Texas ;  and  the  residue  of  said  lands,  after 
discharging  said  debts  and  liabilities,  to  be  disposed  of  as  said 
State  may  direct ;  but  in  no  event  are  said  debts  and  liabilities 
to  become  a  charge  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

3.  New  States  of  convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in  num 
ber,  in  addition  to  said  State  of  Texas,  and   having  sufficient 
population,  may  hereafter,  by  the  consent  of  a  State,  be  formed 
out  of  the  territory  thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled  to  admission 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal   Constitution.     And  such 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHEN'S.  73 

States  as  may  be  formed  out  of  that  portion  of  said  territory 
lying  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  north  latitude, 
commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  shall  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  people  of 
each  State  asking  admission  ma}7  desire.  And  in  such  State  or 
States  as  shall  be  formed  out  of  said  territory,  north  of  said  Mis 
souri  compromise  line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except 
for  crime)  shall  be  prohibited." 

This  was  the  occasion  of  his  first  split  with  the  Whig  organiza 
tion  as  it  was  then  constituted  in  the  United  States.  How  far 
his  general  views  coincided  from  the  beginning  with  those  of 
that  party,  may  be  gathered  from  the  Minority  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Republic,  introduced  in  the 
Georgia  Senate  in  1842,  which,  we  have  before  referred  to,  and 
which  is  given  in  full  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book. 

The  Mexican  war  was,  in  his  opinion,  brought  about 
designedly,  unwisely,  and  unconstitutionally  by  President  Polk. 
As  the  celebrated  resolutions  on  that  war,  introduced  by  Mr. 
Stephens,  in  the  House,  Friday,  January  22d,  1847,  are  brief 
and  indicative  of  his  views  on  the  objects  of  the  war,  we  give 
them,  as  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe  of  the  29th  Congress, 
Second  Session. 

"THE  WAR." 

•"  Mr.  STEPHENS  asked  the  general  consent  of  the  House  to 
offer  a  short  preamble  and  resolutions,  relating  to  a  subject 
which,  of  all  others,  was  now  most  absorbing  of  public  interest. 
His  object  was  not  to  ask  the  action  of  the  House  upon  the 
subject  to-day,  or  to  debate  the  merits  of  the  question,  but  barely 
to  have  the  resolutions  received  and  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  to  be  called  up  at  some 
subsequent  day. 

The  resolutions  were  read  for  information,  and  are  as  follows  : 

"  Whereas,  it  is  no  less  desirable  that  the  interests  and  honor 

of  our  country  should  be  cordially  sustained  and  defended,  so 

long  as  the  present  war  with  Mexico  continues  to  exist,  than  that 


74  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

the  conflict  should  not  be  unnecessarily  prolonged,  but  should  be 
terminated  as  soon  as  an  honorable  peace  can  be  obtained ;  and 
whereas  it  is  believed  that  a  diversity  of  opinion  prevails  to  a 
considerable  extent  as  to  the  ultimate  aims  and  objects  for  which 
the  war  should  be  prosecuted,  and  it  being  proper  that  this  mat 
ter  should  be  settled  by  the  clear  expression  of  the  legislative 
will,  solemnly  proclaimed  to  the  world : 

"  Be  it  therefore  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
That  the  present  war  with  Mexico  '  is  not  waged  with  a  view  to 
conquest,'  or  the  dismemberment  of  that  republic  by  the  acqui 
sition  of  any  portion  of  her  territory. 

"  Be  it  further  Resolved  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  That  it  is 
the  desire  of  the  United  States  that  hostilities  should  be  ter 
minated  upon  terms  honorable  to  both  parties ;  embracing  a  lib 
eral  settlement  on  our  part  of  the  questions  growing  out  of  the 
proper  and  rightful  boundary  of  Texas,  and  a  full  recognition 
and  proper  provision  on  her  part  to  be  made  for  all  the  just 
claims  of  our  citizens  against  that  country ;  the  whole  to  be  ad 
justed  by  negotiation,  to  be  instituted  and  effected  according  to 
the  constitutional  forms  of  each  government  respectively." 

"  Objection  being  made  to  the  reception  of  the  foregoing  pream 
ble  and  resolutions,  the  vote  on  the  motion  to  suspend  the  rules 
was  decided  in  the  negative,  as  follows  :  yeas  76,  nays  88. 

He  made  many  speeches  on  this  subject,  all  of  marked 
ability,  some  while  it  was  pending,  and  some  after  its  close. 
All  of  them,  that  are  yet  of  general  interest,  are  given  in  full 
in  this  collection.  In  his  opinion,  the  most  of  our  subsequent 
troubles  are  attributable  to  that  most  unfortunate  war  and  its 
consequences. 

In  1850,  Mr.  Stephens  was  opposed  to  the  secession  move 
ment  started  at  the  South,  because  of  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia — which  act  he  thought  no  just  cause  of  complaint  to 
the  South.  Nor  did  he  think  the  southern, people  had  legiti 
mate  oau.se  to  complain  of  the  acts  of  Congress  establishing 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHEN'S.  75 

Territorial  governments  in  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  By  these 
acts,  the  South  recovered  the  principle  lost  in  the  Missouri 
compromise  of  1820,  for  by  them  there  was  no  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  any  part  of  the  public  domain. 

In  the  fall  of  1850  he  canvassed  the  State  thoroughly, 
making  speeches  in  every  part  of  it,  travelling  in  all  not 
less  than  two  thousand  miles,  and  exerted  himself  as  few  men 
ever  have  clone,  in  behalf  of  the  Union  under  the  Constitution 
The  excitement  was  very  great.  An  election  was  to  be  held 
for  Delegates  to  a  State  Convention,  to  consider  of  disunion,  in 
consequence  of  those  measures.  In  Green  county  (Georgia) 
he  was  interrupted  by  a  violent  Fire-eater,  who  exclaimed — 
"  Give  us  the  line  of  36°  30'  or  fight !"  His  reply  was—"  My 
friend,  we  have  already  secured  the  line  of  49°,  or  twelve  and 
a  half  degrees  of  latitude  more  than  you  ask,  and  without  a 
fight;  are  you  content,  or  do  you  want  a  fight  any  how?" 
That  was  the  whole  case  in  a  nut-shell.  The  State  went  for 
the  Union  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 

Mr.  Stephens  was  a  member  of  the  Convention,  and  on  the 
Committee  that  drew  up  the  celebrated  "  Georgia  Platform/' 
and  one  of  the  most  prominent  actors  in  both  Committee  and 
Convention.  Hon.  Charles  J.  Jenkins  was  chairman  of  the 
Committee  and  reported  the  resolutions.  As  these  solemn 
resolves  of  Georgia,  in  that  most  important  and  perilous  crisis 
of  the  Government,  have  often  been  referred  to,  we  give  them 
here  in  full,  as  embodying  the  Union  sentiments  of  Mr. 
Stephens  and  the  people  of  Georgia  at  that  time. 
"GEORGIA  PLATFORM  OF  1850." 

"  To  the  end  that  the  position  of  this  State  may  be  clearly 
apprehended  by  her  confederates  of  the  South  and  of  the  North, 
and  that  she  may  be  blameless  of  all  future  consequences — 

11  Be  it  resolved  by  the  people  of  Georgia  in  Convention  assem 
bled,  First.  That  we  hold  the  American  Union  secondary  in 
importance  only  to  the  rights  and  principles  it  was  designed  to 
perpetuate.  That  past  associations,  present  fruition,  and  future 


76  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

prospects,  will  bind  us  to  it  so  long  as  it  continues  to  be  the  safe 
guard  of  those  rights  and  principles. 

"  Second,  That  if  the  thirteen  original  parties  to  the  contract, 
bordering  the  Atlantic  in  a  narrow  belt,  while  their  separate 
interests  were  in  embryo,  their  peculiar  tendencies  scarcely 
developed,  their  revolutionary  trials  and  triumphs  still  green  in 
memory,  found  Union  impossible  without  compromise,  the  thirty- 
one  of  this  day  may  well  yield  somewhat  in  the  conflict  of 
opinion  and  policy,  to  preserve  that  Union  which  has  extended 
the  sway  of  republican  government  over  a  vast  wilderness  to 
another  ocean,  and  proportionally  advanced  their  civilization  and 
national  greatness. 

"Third.  That  in  this  spirit  the  State  of  Georgia  has  maturely 
considered  the  action  of  Congress,  embracing  a  series  of  meas 
ures  for  the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union,  the  organi 
zation  of  territorial  governments  for  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  the 
establishment  of  a  boundary  between  the  latter  and  the  State  of 
Texas,  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  the  extradition  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  (connected 
with  them)  the  rejection  of  propositions  to  exclude  slavery  from 
the  Mexican  territories,  and  to  abolish  it  in  the  District  of 
Columbia ;  and,  whilst  she  does  not  wholly  approve,  will 
abide  by  it  as  a  permanent  adjustment  of  this  sectional  contro 
versy. 

"Fourth.  That  the  State  of  Georgia,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Convention,  will  and  ought  to  resist,  even  (as  a  last  resort)  to  a 
disruption  of  every  tie  which  binds  her  to  the  Union,  any  future 
act  of  Congress  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
without  the  consent  and  petition  of  the  slave-holders  thereof,  or 
any  act  abolishing  slavery  in  places  within  the  slave-holding 
States,  purchased  by  the  United  States  for  the  erection  of  forts, 
magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards,  navy-yards,  and  other  like  pur 
poses  ;  or  in  any  act  suppressing  the  slave-trade  between  slave- 
holding  States ;  or  in  any  refusal  to  admit  as  a  State  any  terri 
tory  applying,  because  of  the  existence  of  slavery  therein ;  or 
in  any  act  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  the  territo 
ries  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico ;  or  in  any  act  repealing  or  materi- 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  77 

ally  modifying  the  laws  now  in  force  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves. 

''Fifth.  That  it  is  the  deliberate  opinion  of  this  convention 
that  upon  the  faithful  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  bill  by  the 
proper  authorities  depends  the  preservation  of  our  much  loved 
Union." 

How  far  these  resolutions  may  be  considered  as  containing 
within  themselves  Disunion  principles,  in  the  opinion  of  some 
whose  fidelity,  to  the  Union  has  never  been  questioned,  we 
subjoin  what  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  said  of  them  in  his 
speech  in  Atlanta,  Georgia,  in  1860. 

Mr.  Douglas  said  : — 

"  I  shall  never  forget  the  intense  anxiety  which  filled  my 
breast  when  the  Georgia  Convention  met  in  December,  1850.  It 
was  no  ordinary  convention.  It  was  no  partisan  meeting.  It 
was  not  an  assemblage  of  mere  politicians  to  make  equivocal 
platforms  for  the  sake  of  party  advantage.  It  was  a  conven 
tion  of  the  sovereign  people,  elected  by  the  people  themselves, 
under  the  authority  of  a  legislative  enactment,  to  determine 
upon  those  principles  which  were  essential  to  the  preservation  of 
the  rights  of  equality  of  Georgia  in  the  Union.  I  have  not  that 
platform  before  me,  but  I  remember  distinctly,  that  it  con 
sisted  of  five  propositions,  each  one  of  which  met  my  approval 
then,  and  receives  my  support  now.  ['  Hurrah  for  Douglas,'  and 
cheers.]  That  celebrated  Georgia  platform,  according  to  my 
recollection,  contained  five  articles.  The  first  was,  that  the 
people  of  Georgia  would  never  submit  to  the  doctrine  that  there 
should  be  no  more  slave  States  admitted  into  this  Union  ;  the 
second  was,  that  the  people  of  Georgia  should  never  submit  to 
the  Wilmot  proviso  in  the  territories ;  the  third  was,  that  the 
people  of  Georgia  would  never  submit  to  the  prohibition  of  the 
slave-trade  between  the  States  by  Congress  ;  the  fourth  was,  that 
the  people  of  Georgia  would  never  submit  to  any  legislation  by 
Congress  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  which  would  impair  the 
rights  or  the  safety  of  the  slave-holding  States  ;  and  the  fifth  was, 
that  the  people  of  Georgia  could  never  submit  to  the  repeal,  or  to 


78  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

any  other  legislative  enactment,  impairing  the  validity  of  the 
fugitive  slave  law.  [Cheers.]  Those  five  propositions  contained 
all  that  the  people  of  Georgia  asked.  Each  of  them  was  just 
and  right  in  itself.  I  stand  by  each  of  them  to-day.  ['  Good.'] 
I  stood  by  them  from  the  time  I  entered  public  life  clown  to  this 
hour.  Why  cannot  the  people  of  Georgia  stand  by  their  own 
platform  ?  ['  We  will,'  '  We  intend  to,'  and  applause.]  Ac 
cording  to  my  recollection,  your  whole  people  acquiesced  in 
that  platform.  Union  men  and  Fire-eaters,  Whigs  and  Demo 
crats,  men  of  all  shades  of  political  opinion,  you  came  up  and 
gave  in  your  adhesion  to  it  as  being  all  that  }^ou  asked,  and  all 
that  you  would  maintahi. 

"According  to  my  recollection,  Howell  Cobb  ran  for  Governor 
of  Georgia  in  1851  on  that  platform,  and  was  elected  by  an  over 
whelming  majority.  ['  That's  so,'  etc.]  If  there  was  a  public  man 
in  Georgia,  of  any  party,  who  was  not  pledged  in  faith  and  honor 
to  that  Georgia  platform,  I  never  heard  of  him.  Why  then  can 
we  not  stand  together  upon  these  propositions  ? 

"  I  am  told  that  some  of  those  opposed  to  me  are  in  the  habit 
of  saying  that  I  construe  the  Georgia  platform  differently  from 
what  they  do.  I  never  construed  it  at  all.  [Laughter.]  It  is  so 
plain  that  it  does  not  admit  of  any  two  constructions.  It  con 
strues  itself.  But  if  there  is  any  doubt,  any  possible  ambiguity 
upon  that  point,  I  will  take  Georgia's  own  construction  of  it. 
[Applause.]  The  Georgia  platform  was  predicated  upon  the 
principles  incorporated  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
****** 

"  Inasmuch,  then,  as  I  stand  to-day  upon  the  Georgia  platform, 
affirming  your  own  construction  of  your  own  platform,  I  want 
to  know  upon  what  ground  it  is  that  those  gentlemen  who  stood 
pledged  to  stand  by  me,  now  consider  that  my  position  is  only  a 
short  cut  to  abolitionism." 


As  Judge  Douglas  states,  the  Constitutional  Union  party  was 
formed,  of  which  Mr.  Stephens  was  the  main  projector  and 
originator.  It  was  based  upon  the  principles  of  these  resolu- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  79 

tions  and  organized  at  Milledgeville  before  the  adjournment  of 
that  Convention. 

His  object  was  to  build  up  a  party,  not  only  in  the  State, 
but  throughout  the  country,  for  the  maintenance  both  of  the 
Union  and  of  the  rights  of  the  States.  In  his  whole  public 
course,  as  we  have  said,  he  was  devoted  to  these  two  objects, 
believing  that  Constitutional  liberty  could  be  best  secured  by  a 
clue  regard  to  both.  "His  devotion  to  the  Union  (in  his  own 
words)  was  not  to  the  Union  per  se,  nor  his  devotion  to  State 
Sovereignty,  to  State  Sovereignty  per  se,  but  to  Constitutional 
liberty,  the  legitimate  offspring  of  these  two  ever  united  in 
holy  wedlock." 

It  was  by  this  party,  so  organized  and  constituted,  that  Mr. 
Cobb  was  elected  Governor  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  in  1851,  by 
an  overwhelming  majority. 

Mr.  Stephens'  views  on  this  Constitutional  Union  organization 
may  be  gathered  from  the  letter  written  from  Washington,  D.  C., 
February  7th,  1852,  to  Hon.  David  A.  Eeese. 

The  two  old  parties — "Whig  and  Democrat — revived  at 
Baltimore.  Hon.  Franklin  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  was 
nominated  by  the  democrats,  and  Gen.  Winfield  Scott,  the  hero 
of  Chippewa  and  Mexico,  by  the  Whigs.  Mr.  Pierce  endorsed 
the  principles  of  the  adjustment  of  1850,  but  Gen.  Scott  declined 
to  do  so.  Mr.  Stephens  supported  Daniel  Webster,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  as  the  embodiment  of  Constitutional  Union  principles. 
A  card  was  published  in  Washington  City,  July  3d,  1852, 
signed  by  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia ;  Charles  James 
Faulkner,  of  Virginia ;  W.  Brooke,  of  Mississippi ;  Alex.  White, 
of  Alabama;  James  Abercrombie,  of  Alabama ;  Robert  Toombs, 
of  Georgia ;  James  Johnson,  of  Georgia,  and  consented  to  by 
C.  H.  Williams  and  M.  P.  Gentry,  of  Tennessee,  giving  their 
reasons  for  not  supporting  General  Scott.  This  paper,  which 
produced  great  sensation  at  the  time,  was  drawn  up  by  Mr 
Stephens. 


4 
80  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

Mr.  Webster  left  the  world  before  tlie  election.  We  do  not 
speak  of  him  as  dead,  for  his  last  earthly  words  remain  true — 
"  I  still  live."  Many  persons  in  Georgia  showed  their  respect 
for  him  by  voting  for  him  after  he  was  dead — among  whom 
were  Toombs  and  Stephens.  Franklin  Pierce  was  elected ;  and 
if  he  had  made  his  own  principles  the  test  of  his  party  organi 
zation,  his  administration  would  have  been  more  successful. 

Mr.  Millard  Fillmore  became  President  on  the  death  of  Taylor, 
as  Andrew  Johnson  has  by  the  death  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  If  he, 
too,  had  made  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  the  basis  of  his 
administration,  he  would  probably  have  been  elected  in  1853,  as 
the  Constitutional  Union  candidate.  Mr.  Webster  was  on  that 
line,  but  Mr.  Fillmore  could  not  be  got  up  to  it.  He  adhered  to 
the  old  Whig  organization,  and  was  afraid  of  being  Tylerized. 

In  like  manner,  President  Pierce  adhered  to  the  old  Demo 
cratic  organization,  and  gave  office  to  softs  rather  than  hards, 
opposers  rather  than  friends  of  the  adjustment  of  1850.  He 
should  have  remembered  the  scriptural  philosophy,  "  that  new 
wine  should  not  be  put  into  old  bottles,  lest  they  burst." 

In  1854  Mr.  Stephens  defended  the  principles  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act,  and  did  so  on  the  ground  that  that  act  carried 
out  the  adjustment  measures  of  1850.  Both  parties,  in  the 
election  of  1853,  had  endorsed  those  principles — the  Whigs 
most  emphatically — as  a  settlement,  both  in  principle  and  sub 
stance,  of  the  subjects  embraced  in  them. 

As  a  great  deal  has  been  written  and  said  on  this  subject,  it 
may  not  be  improper  to  here  reproduce  what  Mr.  Douglas  said 
of  it  in  1860  :— 

"In  1854  it  became  my  duty,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories  in  the  Senate,  to  bring  forward  a  bill  to  organize  the 
Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  In  offering  that  bill  I 
deemed  it  my  duty  to  conform  precisely  to  the  principles  affirmed 
by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  indorsed  by  the  two 
great  National  parties — Whig  and  Democratic — in  their  conven 
tions  in  Baltimore  in  1852." 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  81 

For  the  same  reasons  Mr.  Stephens'  gave  this  act  his  cordial 
support,  and  was  the  great  co-laborer  of  Douglas  in  that  con 
test.  During  the  whole  of  Mr.  Stephens'  congressional  career, 
his  course  was  not  at  all  partisan,  in  the  usual  sense  of  that 
term.  A  State  Eights  man,  he  supported  Harrison  in  1840. 
In  1844,  he  supported  Mr.  Clay.  In  1845,  he  acted  with  the 
Democratic  party  on  the  admission  of  Texas  as  a  State  into  the 
Union.  In  1846  and  1847,  he  stood  with  Mr.  Calhoun  and  the 
Whig  party  on  the  Mexican  war.  His  resolutions  on  this  sub 
ject  in  the  house,  in  February,  1847,  became  the  basis  of  the 
Whig  organization  throughout  the  country ;  and  on  the  policy 
therein  indicated,  that  party  had  a  majority  in  the  next  House 
of  Representatives ;  and  on  the  same  policy  Gen.  Taylor  was 
elected  President  in  1848.  Mr.  Stephens  gave  his  election 
a  zealous  support.  In  1850,  when  Gen.  Taylor's  policy  met 
his  disapproval,  he  opposed  it  as  decidedly  as  he  had  done  that 
of  Mr.  Polk,  and  devoted  all  his  energies  to  shaping  and 
establishing  the  principles  embodied  in  what  is  known  as  the 
adjustment  measures  of  that  year.  In  1854,  he  exerted  himself, 
in  like  manner,  to  maintain  and  carry  out  these  same  principles, 
as  set  forth  and  declared  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act. 
Throughout  his  whole  public  course,  bare  party  considerations 
have  ever  been  held  subordinate  to  his  own  convictions  of 
right ;  and  his  associations,  without  regard  to  previous  party 
alliances,  have  always  been  cordial  with  all  those  who  con 
curred  with  him  at  the  time  in  his  views  of  the  public  interest. 
His  refusal  to  support  General  Scott  for  President  in  1852,  was 
caused  by  the  general's  refusal  to  endorse  the  principles  of  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  not  by  any  failure  to  ap 
preciate  his  great  public  services.  On  the  contrary,  it  waa 
mainly  through  the  instrumentality  of  Mr.  Stephens  that  the 
chieftain,  so  recently  dead,  received  the  rank  of  Lieutenant- 
General. 

In  1856,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  by  any  means  the  man  of 

his  choice,  but  he  voted  for  him.     The  quarrel  of  President 
6 


82  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

Buchanan  with  Judge  Douglas,  Mr.  Stephens  condemned,  as  not 
only  very  impolitic  and  unwise,  but  as  very  unjust.  He  saw,  if 
Mr.  Buchanan  persisted  in  his  course,  that  a  disruption  of  the 
party  at  the  Charleston  Convention  would  be  inevitable,  and 
with  it  a  national  convulsion,  almost  as  certain.  Therefore  he 
retired  to  private  life.  His  own  quaint  illustration  was — 
"  When  I  see  the  engineer  is  reckless,  and  expect  a  smash-up 
ahead,  I  always  get  off  at  the  first  station." 

One  important  element  to  be  considered,  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Stephens'  rapid  rise  in  the  estimation  of  the  people,  as 
both  orator  and  statesman,  is  the  fact  that  there  were  so  many 
bright  stars  in  the  intellectual  constellation  of  the  Union  be 
fore  his  arose.  In  the  time  of  the  administration  of  President 
Tyler,  for  instance  (which  was  in  power  when  he  entered  Con 
gress  in  1843),  there  were  great  names.  In  the  House,  were 
John  Quincy  Adams,  Henry  A.  Wise,  George  C.  Drumgole, 
Aaron  Y.  Brown,  E.  C.  Winthrop,  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
Howell  Cobb,  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  Andrew  Johnson,  Garrett 
Davis,  and  their  kindred  great  throughout  the  United  States. 
Kobert  Toombs  and  Jefferson  Davis  came  in  soon  after.  In 
the  Senate  were  Wilie  P.  Mangum,  Kufus  Choate,  Thomas  H. 
Benton,  James  Buchanan,  John  Macpherson  Berrien,  George 
McDuffie,  Eichard  H.  Bayard,  William  C.  Eeves,  John  J.  Crit- 
tenden,  and  their  illustrious  compeers. 

John  C.  Calhoun  was  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  head  of  a 
brilliant  Cabinet.  The  two  master  spirits  of  the  age — Daniel 
Webster  and  Henry  Clay — were  in  the  prime  of  life,  and  in  only 
temporary  retirement.  Eoger  B.  Taney,  Joseph  Story,  Edward 
Everett,  Lewis  Cass,  and  Washington  Irving,  were  in  public 
life,  some  on  the  Supreme  Bench,  and  some  at  foreign  courts. 
"  There  were  giants  in  that  day,"  yet,  among  them,  Alexander 
H.  Stephens  arose  to  greatness  too. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  83 


IV. 

REVIEW  OF  SPEECHES  AND  LETTERS. 

SPEECH  AGAINST  ACQUISITION  OF  TERRITORY  FROM  MEXICO — 
AGAINST  THE  CLAYTON  COMPROMISE — PERSONAL  RENCOUN 
TER — PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848 — THE  COMPROMISE 
OF  1850 — THE  GEORGIA  PLATFORM — KANSAS  AND  NEBRASKA 
BILL — TERRITORIAL  POLICY  IN  REGARD  TO  AFRICAN  SLAVERY 
—  KNOW  -  NOTHINGISM  —  ADMISSION  OF  MINNESOTA  AND 
OREGON. 

WE  will  now  briefly  refer  to  some  of  the  speeches  upon 
which  his  fame  partly  rests.  His  first  address  was  delivered 
on  the  4th  day  of  July,  1834,  before  his  admission  to  the  bar. 
It  was  made  at  Crawfordville,  and  is  full  of  earnestness,  power, 
and  eloquence.  The  one  on  his  right  to  a  seat,  February  9th, 
1844,  was  his  first  in  Congress.  The  speech  on  the  "Tariff 
Bill,"  with  many  others,  not  now  of  general  interest,  are  omitted 
from  this  collection. 

The  speech  on  the  resolutions  for  the  admission  of  Texas, 
we  spoke  of.  In  his  able  speech  on  the  Mexican  War,  June 
16th,  1846,  occurs  his  well-remembered  vindication,  or  rather 
eulogy,  of  Daniel  Webster. 

Its  last  words  briefly  convey  his  life-long  creed  upon  the 
effects  of  war.  Speaking  of  human  advancement,  he  said: 
"This  is  not  done  by  wars,  whether  foreign  or  domestic. 
Fields  of  blood  and  carnage  may  make  men  brave  and  heroic, 
but  seldom  tend  to  make  nations  either  good,  virtuous,  or 
great." 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  12th  of  February, 
1847,  Mr.  Stephens  delivered  one  of  the  most  impressive 
speeches  of  that  period.  The  proposition  before  the  House 


84  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

was  to  appropriate  three  millions  of  dollars  to  enable  the  Presi 
dent  to  conclude  a  treaty  with  Mexico.     Mr  Stephens  said  : 

"  Mr.  CHAIRMAN — It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact, 
or  to  affect  to  be  blind  to  the  truth,  that  this  country  is  now  sur 
rounded  by  difficulties  of  no  ordinary  magnitude,  and  fast 
approaching  others,  which  threaten  to  be  far  greater  and  more 
perilous  than  any  which  have  ever  been  encountered  since  the 
foundation  of  the  government. 

"It  is  true,  the  declaration  was  made  the  other  day,  by  a  dis 
tinguished  senator,  in  his  place,  that  he  saw  no  dangers  about, 
he  espied  nothing  in  the  prospect  to  cause  alai*m  or  apprehension, 
and  that,  in  his  opinion,  *  the  sentinel  upon  the  watchtower  might 
sing  upon  his  post  V 

11  Sir,  whether  this  sentiment  was  expressed  by  authority,  and 
is  to  be  taken  as  the  exponent  of  the  feelings  of  those  who  are 
now  wielding  so  recklessly  the  destinies  of  the  nation,  I  know 
not ;  but  to  me  it  seems  somewhat  kindred  to,  if  not  the  legiti 
mate  offspring  of,  that  spirit  which  prompted  Nero  to  indulge  in 
music  and  dancing  when  Rome  was  in  flames." 

After  denouncing  the  attempt  of  the  Administration  to  pre 
vent  free  speech  upon  its  acts,  he  went  on  to  speak  of  the 
unfair  means  used  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk  : 

"  But  if,  in  the  inscrutable  ways  of  Providence,  he,  who  has 
been  thus  fraudulently  elevated  to  power,  should  be  the  ill-fated 
instrument  of  our  chastisement,  the  punishment  maybe  just,  but 
he  will  take  no  honor  in  its  execution.  If  the  result  of  his  mis 
chievous  counsels  should,  in  any  way,  prove  disastrous  to  our 
institutions — the  stability,  harmony,  and  permanency  of  the 
government — which  there  is  now  abundant  cause  seriously  to 
apprehend,  he  will  certainly  have  no  place  in  the  grateful  remem 
brance  of  mankind.  Fame  he  will  have ;  but  it  will  be  of  the 
character  of  that  which  perpetuates  the  name  of  Erostratus. 
And  the  more  deeply  blackened  than  even  his,  as  the  stately 
structure  of  this  government,  the  temple  of  our  liberties,  is 
grander  and  more  majestic  than  the  far-famed  magnificence  of 
the  Epl  esian  dome. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHEN'S.  85 

"  The  crisis,  sir,  requires  not  only  firmness  of  principle,  but 
boldness  of  speech.  As  the  immortal  Tuliy  said,  in  the  days  of 
Cat  aline,  when  Rome  was  threatened  with  the  most  imminent 
dangers,  the  time  has  come  when  the  opinion  of  men  should  not 
be  uttered  by  their  voices  only,  but  '  inscriptum  sit  in  f route 
unius  cujusque  quid  de  respublica  sentit1 — it  should  even  be 
written  upon  the  forehead  of  each  one  what  he  thinks  of  the 
republic — there  should  be  no  concealment.  In  what  I  have  to 
say,  therefore,  I  shall  use  that  character  of  speech  which  I  think 
befitting  the  time  and  occasion." 

He  then  discussed  at  length  the  policy  of  the  war,  asking, 
#  *  #  *  *  * 

"  Whether  a  line  of  military  posts  should  now  be  established  and 
defended,  until  our  enemy  shall  get  in  a  humor  to  treat ;  or 
whether  the  most  desolating  invasion  should  be  pushed  forward, 
as  one  gentleman  has  argued — 

1  Even  until 

The  gates  of  mercy  shall  be  all  shut  up. 
And  the  fleshed  soldier,  rough,  and  hard  of  heart, 
In  liberty  of  bloody  hand  shall  range, 
With  conscience  wide  as  hell,  mowing  like  grass, 
Their  fresh,  fair  virgins  and  blooming  youth.'  " 

In  tlie  course  of  his  argument,  denouncing  in  strong  terms 
all  wars  waged  for  conquest,  he  said : — 

"  But  free  institutions  never  did  and  never  will  enlarge  the 
circuit  of  their  extent  by  force  of  arms.  The  history  of  the  world 
abounds  with  many  melancholy  examples  in  illustration  of  the 
truth  of  this  position.  No  principle  is  more  dangerous  to  us,  than 
that  of  compelling  other  nations  to  adopt  our  form  of  govern 
ment.  It  is  not  only  wrong  in  itself,  but  it  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  spirit  and  genius  of  the  liberty  we  enjoy ;  and,  if  persisted 
in,  must  inevitably  result  in  our  downfall  and  ruin.  No  instance 
is  to  )e  found  upon  record  of  any  republic  having  ever  entered 
upon  such  a  hazardous  crusade  which  did  not  end  in  the  subver 
sion  of  its  own  liberties,  and  the  ultimate  enslavement  of  its  own 
people.  And  before  embarking  upon  so  dangerous  an  enterprise, 


86  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

I  trust  we  shall  have  some  security  and  guarantee  that  we  shall 
at  least  escape  the  fate  of  those  whose  example  we  follow. 

"  Sir,  I  very  much  fear  that  the  people  of  this  country  are  not 
sufficiently  awake  and  alive  to  the  mischievous  and  ruinous 
schemes  of  those  to  whom  they  have  for  a  time  confided  the 
management  of  public  affairs.  Mr.  Madison  long  since  uttered 
the  prophetic  warning,  that  'if  a  free  people  be  a  wise  people 
also,  they  will  NEVER  FORGET  that  the  danger  of  surprise  can 
never  be  so  great  as  when  the  advocates  of  the  prerogative  of  war 
can  sheath  it  in  a  symbol  of  peace. ,'  And  never  in  our  history 
did  the  times  so  strongly  require  a  practical  consideration  of 
this  solemn  admonition." 

Then  in  tones  as  earnest  as  the  throbbings  of  an  angel's  heart 
and  solemn  as  the  trump  of  final  judgment,  he  went  OP  to  speak 
of  the  inevitable  consequences  of  the  war  if  waged  for  Conquest, 
and  to  tell  of  the  yet  distant  effects  of  causes  then  <\t  work. 
Those  prophetic  utterances  yet  echo  through  the  "comdors  of 
time,"  more  truthful  than  Sybyl  caught  from  the  steaming 
caves  of  Delphos ;  plainer  than  the  murmurs  from  the  sun- 
kissed  lips  of  'Memnon,  and  as  seen  in  the  light  of  tlie  late 
semi-decade  of  blood,  faithful  as  Isaiah  to  the  inspirations  of 
heaven.  Speaking  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  the  resolutions 
of  the  legislatures  of  the  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Ohio,  he  said : — 

"  They  show  a  fixed  determination  on  the  part  of  the  North, 
which  is  now  in  a  majority  in  this  House,  and  ever  will  b*  here 
after,  that,  if  territory  is  acquired,  the  institutions  of  the  South 
shall  be  forever  excluded  from  its  limits  ;  this  is  to  be  the  con 
dition  attached  to  the  bill  upon  your  table !  What  is  to  1:  e  the 
result  of  this  matter  ?  Will  the  South  submit  to  this  restriction  ? 
Will  the  North  ultimately  yield  ?  Or  shall  these  two  greaf,  sec 
tions  of  the  Union  be  arrayed  against  each  other  ?  When  the 
elements  of  discord  are  fully  aroused,  who  shall  direct  the  storm  ? 
Who  does  not  know  how  this  country  was  shaken  to  itf  vny 
centre  by  the  Missouri  agitation  ? 


ALEXANDER   H.  STEPHENS.  87 

"  Should  another  such  a  scene  occur,  who  shall  be  mighty 
enough  to  prevent  the  most  disastrous  consequences  ?  The  mas 
ter  spirit  of  that  day  is  no  longer  in  your  councils.  Shall  an 
other  equally  great  and  patriotic  ever  be  found  ?  Let  not  gen 
tlemen  quiet  their  apprehensions  by  staving  off  this  question. 
It  has  to  be  met,  and  better  now  than  at  a  future  day.  It  had 
better  be  decided  now  than  after  more  blood  and  treasure  has 
been  spent  in  the  pursuit  of  that  which  may  ultimately  be  our 
ruin.  Upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  about  which  so  much  has 
been  said  in  this  debate,  I  shall  say  but  little.  I  do  not  think  it 
necessary  to  enter  into  a  defence  of  the  character  of  the  people 
of  my  section  of  the  Union,  against  the  arguments  of  those  who 
have  been  pleased  to  denounce  that  institution  as  wicked  and 
sinful.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  and  for  them,  that  the  morality  of 
that  institution  stands  upon  a  basis  as  firm  as  the  Bible ;  and  by 
that  code  of  morals  we  are  content  to  abide  until  a  better  be 
furnished.  Until  Christianity  be  overthrown,  and  some  other 
system  of  ethics  be  substituted,  the  relation  of  master  and  slave 
can  never  be  regarded  as  an  offence  against  the  Divine  laws. 
The  character  of  our  people  speaks  for  itself.  And  a  more  gen 
erous,  more  liberal,  more  charitable,  more  benevolent,  more  phi 
lanthropic,  and  a  more  magnanimous  people,  I  venture  to  say, 
are  not  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  this  or  any  other  country.  As 
to  their  piety,  it  is  true  they  have  'none  to  boast  of.'  But  they 
are  free  from  that  pharisaical  sin  of  self-righteousness,  which  is 
so  often  displayed  elsewhere,  of  forever  thanking  the  Lord  that 
they  are  not  as  other  men  are." 

"But  if  bad  counsels  prevail — if  all  the  solemn  admonitions 
of  the  present  and  the  past  are  disregarded — if  the  policy  of  the 
Administration  is  to  be  carried  out — if  Mexico,  the  "  forbidden 
fruit,"  is  to  be  seized  at  every  hazard,  I  very  much  fear  that 
those  who  control  public  affairs,  in  their  eager  pursuit  after  the 
unenviable  distinction  of  despoiling  a  neighboring  republic,  will 
have  the  still  less  enviable  glory  of  looking  back  upon  the  shat 
tered  and  broken  fragments  of  their  own  Confederacy.  And 
instead  of  'revelling  in  the  halls  of  Montezuma,'  or  gloating 
over  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  cities  of  the  Aztecs,  they  may  be 


88  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

compelled  to  turn  and  behold  in  their  rear  another  and  a  wider 
prospect  of  desolation,  carnage,  and  blood. 

"  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  asked  by  him  who  spake  as  man  never 
spake,  '  WJiat  shall  a  man  be  profited,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world 
and  lose  his  own  soulT  And  may  I  not,  with  reverence,  ask 
what  we  shall  be  profited  as  a  natioo,  if  we  gain  any  part,  or 
even  the  whole  of  Mexico,  and  lose  the  Union,  the  soul  of  our 
political  existence  ?  The  Union  is  not  only  the  life,  but  the  soul 
of  these  States.  It  is  this  that  gives  them  animation,  vigor, 
power,  prosperity,  greatness,  and  renown;  and  from  this  alone 
spring  our  hopes  of  immortality  as  a  common  people." 

The  speech  on  the  Land  Bill,  for  the  disposal  of  the  public 
lands,  is  a  very  able  one. 

Also,  his  speech  on  the  War  and  Taxation,  in  which  he 
records  his  indignant  protest  against  spending  fifty  or  a  hun 
dred  millions  (the  debt  then  being  sixty  millions,  and  a  loan 
bill  on  the  table  for  eighteen  millions)  to  compel  the  Mexicans 
to  take  fifteen  or  twenty  millions  for  New  Mexico  and  California, 
on  the  score  of  public  interest.  His  speech  on  the  Clayton 
Compromise,  was  delivered  on  the  Territorial  Bill,  August 
7th,  1848. 

In  politics,  Mr.  Stephens  has  ever  been  decided,  bold,  and 
fearless.  He  never  courted  popular  favor  by  first  feeling  the 
popular  pulse,  and  then  going  with  the  current.  He  always 
thought  for  himself,  and  acted  for  himself,  relying  on  the  good 
sense  of  the  people  to  sustain  him.  This  was  his  course  in  his 
first  canvass  for  the  legislature ;  it  was  his  course  upon  the 
annexation  of  Texas  ;  it  was  his  course  on  the  know-nothing 
question  ;  and  this  was  his  course,  though  at  his  peril  in  person 
and  politics,  upon  the  Clayton  Compromise  of  1818.  His  mo 
tion,  in  the  House,  to  lay  that  motion  on  the  table  (which  pre 
vailed),  and  his  speech  on  the  subject,  came  near  costing  him 
his  life. 

He  was  sustained  at  the  time  by  but  seven  men  in  Congress 
from  the  entire  South.  The  bitterest  denunciations  were 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  89 

hurled  against  him  from  the  press  and  on  the  "stump"  His 
moral  courage  was  as  undaunted  as  his  physical  was  unyield 
ing.  He  came  home — went  before  the  people — neither  asking 
quarters  nor  giving  them. 

It  was  reported  to  him,  that  he  had  been  proclaimed  a  traitor 
to  the  South,  in  a  public  speech  made  by  one  who  had  held 
high  position  in  the  State.  In  a  personal  interview  with  this 
person,  he  inquired  whether  the  charge  had  been  made  as  re 
ported;  and  though  the  charge  was  denied,  and  the  parties 
separated  in  a  friendly  manner  at  the  time,  yet  the  words  used 
by  Mr.  Stephens  on  that  occasion  led  to  a  subsequent  demand 
upon  him  for  a  retraction.  This  was  refused,  and  a  rencounter 
ensued.  Mr.  Stephens  was  unarmed,  while  his  assailant,  who  was 
more  than  twice  his  size  and  weight,  was  duly  prepared  for  the 
rencounter  which  he  sought.  Upon  the  refusal  to  retract  the 
words,  an  assault  was  made  upon  Mr.  Stephens  with  open 
knife.  This  he  for  some  time  parried  with  an  umbrella,  re 
ceiving  several  wounds  upon  his  arms  and  breast;  but  his 
assailant,  rushing  upon  him  with  all  his  superior  force  and 
weight,  threw  him  upon  his  back.  One  blow  with  the  knife 
aimed  at  the  heart,  would  have  done  its  fatal  work,  but  for 
the  fortunate  position  of  the  blade  of  the  knife.  Another  blow, 
on  the  other  side,  passing  between  two  ribs,  severed  an  inter- 
costalery  artery.  The  strong  man  then,  with  his  left  hand  on 
the  forehead  of  his  adversary,  and  the  knife  in  his  light  hand, 

said,  ''Now retract,  or  I  will  cut  your throat!"    The 

reply  was,  "  No,  never !  Cut !"  As  the  knife  came,  Mr.  Stephens 
caught  it  in  his  right  hand,  and  with  his  left  seized  the  right 
elbow  of  him  who  wielded  it.  In  this  way  the  struggle  lasted 
until  both  parties  were  on  their  feet  again,  and  others  came 
to  the  rescue.  The  right  hand,  that  seized  the  knife  as  it  was 
aimed  at  the  throat,  was  horribly  mangled  by  the  turning  and 
twisting  of  the  blade  in  efforts  to  get  it  out  of  the  grip.  The 
hemorrhage  from  the  severed  artery  would  have  resulted  in 


90  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

speedy  death,  but  for  the  fortunate  presence  of  Dr.  Hitchcock, 
of  the  United  States  Army,  whose  skill  arrested  it. 

The  scene  occurred  in  the  piazza  of  Thompson's  Hotel,  in 
Atlanta,  Georgia,  on  the  4th  of  September,  1848.  Mr.  Stephens 
was  laid  up  for  several  weeks  with  these  wounds.  The  right 
hand  was  thought  to  be  permanent!}'  disabled.  The  tendons  of 
several  fingers  and  the  thumb  were  severed.  He  could  not  use 
the  hand  at  all  for  about  twelve  months.  In  the  meantime, 
he  accustomed  himself  to  write  with  his  left.  But,  to  the  per 
manent  injury  of  the  right,  his  bad  chirography  is  now  partly 
owing.* 

We  have  alluded  to  this  affair  now,  only  because  it  is  an  im 
portant  fact  in  the  life  of  him  of  whom  we  write,  and  with  no 
view  or  wish  to  awaken  any  of  the  unpleasant  reminiscences 
of  the  times  when  it  occurred. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  the  gentleman  who  figured  in  the 
scene  with  Mr.  Stephens  had  been  previously  on  very  friendly 
terms  with  him — and  some  years  afterward  they  became 
friendly  again.  The  ill  blood  of  that  day  entirely  subsided  on 
both  sides.  That  gentleman  is  now  dead,  and  we  say  of  him, 
as  we  doubt  not  Mr.  Stephens  would,  "De  mortuis  nil  nisi 
bonv.m."  He  was  a  man  of  extraordinary  talents  and  brilliant 
intellect.  At  the  bar  in  Georgia,  in  companionship  and  social 
qualities  he  had  few  equals  and  no  superiors.  In  dismissing 
the  subject,  let  us  only  wish  to  his  ashes  and  his  memory — 
"Requiescat  in  pace" 

How  Mr.  Stephens  resumed  the  labors  of  the  canvass,  will  be 

*  Many  amusing,  and  some  provoking  things  have  occurred  from  this 
terribly  bad  writing,  in  which  Hon.  Rufus  Choate  was  his  only  rival,  and 
of  which  we  will  give  at  least  one/ac  simile  of  a  late  date.  Printers  often 
set  up  Tuesday  for  Thursday,  and  North  for  South,  or  friends-  fill  appoint 
ments  too  soon  or  too  late.  He  once  ordered  two  "  Dagon  plows,"  an  old 
kind  bearing  that  name  which  he  wished.  He  received  two  dozen,  a  full 
car  load  of  another  kind.  Once,  when  the  writer  was  with  him  on  a  visit, 
he  ordered  fifty  pounds  of  rice,  and  received  fifty  pounds  of  ice. 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  91 

seen  from  the  following  account  of  his  appearance  at  a  mass 
meeting  of  the  supporters  of  General  Taylor  for  the  Presidency 
held  in  Atlanta,  Georgia,  ten  days  afterward. 

This  account  is  taken  from  the  Augusta  (Georgia)  Chronicle 
and  Sentinel,  of  18th  September,  1848 : 

"EIGHT  TO  TEN  THOUSAND  WHIGS  IN  COUNCIL. 

"  The  Whigs'  Mass  Meeting  at  Atlanta  on  the  14th  inst,  whether 
we  regard  it  for  its  numbers,  the  intelligence  and  orderly  char 
acter  of  those  who  compose  it,  or  the  ability,  prudence,  and  dis 
cretion  of  the  speakers,  was  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  en 
thusiastic  political  festivals  that  has  occurred  in  Georgia  for 
years. 

"  The  friends  of  '  Old  Zack'  came  up  in  crowds  from  almost 
every  section  of  the  State,  with  not  a  few  from  the  adjacent 
States,  evincing  their  devotion  to  the  institutions  of  the  country, 
and  their  desire  to  reclaim  the  administration  of  the  government 
Nor  were  the  voters  from  the  'gable  end,' that  stronghold  of 
democracy  in  Georgia,  the  Cherokee  Circuit,  less  zealous  than 
their  brethren  from  the  middle  sections." 

*  *  *  *  *  * 
Mr.  Stephens  being  still  unable  to  walk,  some  enthusiastic 

friends  determined  that  he  should,  at  least,  be  seen  on  the  stand, 
and  on  this  occasion,  placed  him  in  a  carriage  which  they  drew 
themselves,  to  avoid  all  accidents  which  might  happen  from  the 
use  of  horses. 

The  account  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  his  appearance  and 
reception  in  the  procession  : 

"  When  his  delicate  and  feeble  form  was  seen  borne  along  at 
the  head  of  a  column,  the  enthusiasm  of  the  vast  multitude 
knew  no  bounds,  and  the  air  was  rent  with  such  a  loud  and  con 
tinuous  shout  for  '  Stephens  !'  '  Stephens  !'  '  Stephens  !'  as  Georgia 
Whigs  only  could  give  to  their  devoted  representative.  Such  a 
reception  was  alike  worthy  of  the  man  and  those  who  gave  it :  it 
was  touching,  eloquent,  sublime,  and  caused  the  manly  tear  to 
start  in  many  an  eye." 

*  *  *  *  *  * 


92  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

After  speaking  of  the  organization  of  the  meeting,  and  the 
speech  of  Judge  Berrien,  the  writer  proceeds  as  follows : 

"  When  Judge  Berrien  resumed  his  seat,  some  one  called  for 
Stephens,  and  immediately,  like  electricity,  his  name  seemed  to 
thrill  the  immense  mass  from  centre  to  circumference,  and  all 
crowded  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  stand,  with  a  shout  that  would 
have  made  a  Western  audience  stand  mute  in  profound  admira 
tion.  When  his  slender,  emaciated  form  was  seen  slowly  rising 
from  his  seat  and  to  approach  the  front  of  the  stand,  what  seemed 
the  wildest  enthusiasm  before,  became  tame  approbation.  When 
the  shout  had  died  away,  he  announced,  in  a  clear,  shrill  tone, 
which  those  only  who  have  heard  him  can  appreciate,  that  he 
arose  not  to  make  a  speech  (for  he  was  not  able),  but  simply  to 
acknowledge  the  distinguished  and  cordial  manner  in  which  his 
presence  had  been  greeted. 

"  He  would,  however,  relate  an  anecdote.  It  was  of  the  sol 
dier — a  man  well  advanced  in  life,  one  of  the  renowned  Doni- 
phan's  regiment — who  returned  to  New  Orleans  after  an  arduous 
service  in  Mexico,  almost  naked,  and  destitute  of  the  means  to 
supply  his  immediate  wants,  or  to  pay  his  passage  back  to  his 
family  and  friends.  In  this  forlorn  and  destitute  condition,  a 
generous  citizen  of  New  Orleans  took  him  to  his  store,  shielded 
his  nakedness  from  the  public  gaze,  and  gave  him  the  means  of 
returning  to  his  home.  When  the  grateful  soldier  was  about  to 
take  his  leave,  his  benefactor  asked  if  he  could  do  any  thing  more 
for  him.  The  soldier  replied  '  no,'  and  took  leave.  After  going 
some  distance,  he  suddenly  stopped,  hesitated,  and  turning  round 
retraced  his  steps  to  the  store.  When  he  entered,  he  met  the 
inquiring  gaze  of  his  benefactor,  and  observed,  '  I  told  you  there 
was  nothing  more  that  you  could  do  for  me.  I  forgot,  there  is 
one  thing  you  can  do.'  'What  is  that?'  inquired  the  merchant, 
as  he  cordially  grasped  the  hand  of  the  war-worn  veteran.  '  You 
can  vote  for  '  Old  Zack' — all  I  ask  of  you  is  not  to  forget  to 
vote  for  "  Old  Zack."  And  with  a  heart  overflowing  with  grati 
tude,  he  grasped  the  hand  of  his  benefactor,  and  bade  him  adieu. 

"  'Now,'  said  Mr.  Stephens,  'all  I  have  to  say  to  you  is,  '  don't 
forget  to  vote  for  '  Old  Zack.' '  He  then  resumed  his  seat  amid 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHEN'S.  93 

such  a  shout,  as  gave  the  highest  assurance  that  the  injunction 
would  not  be  forgotten." 

ISTor  did  they  forget  it. 

When  at  length  able  to  get  out,  he  canvassed  not  only  his 
own  district,  but  the  entire  State. 

We  need  hardly  add,  that  Mr.  Stephens  was  again  trium 
phantly  elected,  and  that  General  Taylor  carried  the  electoral 
vote  of  the  State  by  a  decided  majority.  At  the  time  Mr. 
Stephens  returned  to  Georgia,  in  August,  few  people  questioned 
that  General  Cass  would  carry  the  State  by  at  least  ten  thou 
sand.  Yet  such  was  the  result  of  the  canvass,  that  General 
Taylor  carried  it  by  about  two  thousand  majority. 

The  Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden,  congratulating  Mr.  Stephens, 
and  referring  to  the  report  that  had  first  gone  out,  of  his  being 
killed  in  the  Atlanta  rencounter,  said  this  could  not  be  true,  or 
else  the  "Dead  Douglas"  had  carried  the  field. 

After  the  election  of  General  Taylor,  in  the  session  of  Con 
gress  ensuing,  Mr.  Stephens  opposed  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  that  had  been  made  with  Mexico,  ^acquir  ing  more  terri 
tory,  unless  the  slavery  question  springing  from  it  should  be  first 
settled.  His  speech  on  this  subject  is  one  of  the  ablest  he  ever 
made.  It  is,  however,  not  in  this  collection.  Had  his  warning 
been  heeded,  the  late  troubles  that  have  so  afflicted  this  country 
might  have  been  avoided.  Because  this  question  was  not  first 
settled,  he  voted  against  carrying  the  treaty  into  effect.  In 
another  speech,  made  August  9th,  1850,  after  the  treaty  was 
consummated,  he  appealed  to  the  fairness  of  the  North  for  a  just 
division  of  the  territory  which  had  been  acquired  against  his 
vote,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  "Let  there  be  no  strife  I 
pray  thee,  between  me  and  thee,  between  thy  herdmen  and  my 
herd  men,  for  we  are  brethren.  Is  not  the  whole  land  before 
thee?  Separate  thyself,  I  pray  thee,  from  me.  If  thou  wilt 
take  the  left  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  right :  or  if  thou  de 
part  on  the  right  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  left."  In  it  also 
was  the  solemn  warning,  that  a  long  continued  course  of  uupro- 


94:  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

voked  aggression,  would  sooner  or  later  leave  to  the  people  of 
the  South  no  other  alternative,  than  to  acquiesce  in  the  neces 
sity  of  "  holding  you,  as  the  rest  of  mankind,  enemies  in  war — 
in  peace,  friends." 

He  consented  to  deliver  an  oration  at  the  Maryland  Institute, 
in  that  old  Monumental  City,  Baltimore,  at  the  commemoration 
of  the  birthday  of  Washington,  February  22d,  1852.  The 
Magyar  Chief,  Louis  Kossnth,  had  then  recently  come  to  this 
country.  Kesolutions  of  welcome  had  been  passed  by  Congress, 
and  his  progress  from  New  York  had  been  one  continued  ova 
tion.  Mr.  Stephens  took  strong  grounds  against  the  mania, 
and  thought  the  birthday  anniversary  of  Washington  the  best 
time  to  recall  to  his  forgetful  countrymen  the  solemn  warning 
of  the  Pater  Patria  against  "  entangling  alliances"  with  foreign 
powers.  He  was  the  originator  of  the  great  Washington  birth 
day  celebration  in  the  Capitol  that  year,  and  in,  regard  to  the 
invitation  of  Baltimore,  he  said,  that  day  "Must  not  go  a  beg 
ging  for  an  orator,"  and  went. 

On  the  27th  of  Ap,ril,  1852,  he  made  his  well  known  speech 
upon  the  "  State  of  the  Country,  Homestead  Bill,  State  of  Par 
ties,  and  the  Presidency,"  in  which  he  closed  with  the  words  of 
the  Earl  of  Derby,  "  I  elect  on  this  issue  to  be  tried  by  God 
and  my  country." 

Mr.  Stephens  has  probably  made  as  many  literary  speeches 
as  any  one  in  Georgia,  having  always  manifested  great  interest 
in  education.  They  were  generally  extemporaneous  (as  the 
most  of  his  efforts  are),  and  of  them  only  two  were  written,  and 
only  the  one  we  next  speak  of  was  ever  published. 

Among  all  his  speeches,  perhaps  that,  which  for  profound 
yet  practical  philosoplry,  literary  excellence,  and  pleasing 
arrangement,  takes  precedence,  is  the  address  before  the 
literary  societies  of  Emory  College,  Oxford,  Georgia,  July 
21st,  1852. 

He  drew  largely  from  human  experience  and  historic  mines 
to  enforce  his  precepts  to  the  young,  and  closed  with  the  lesson 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS,  95 

drawn  from  the  incident  in  Bulwer's  great  play,  where  the  page 
says,  "  If  I  fail "  and  Eichelieu  stops  the  utterance  with  : 

"Fail!  FAIL! 

In  the  lexicon  of  youth,  which  fate  reserves 
For  a  bright  manhood,  there  is  no  such  word 

AS  FAIL  !" 

• 

In  that  speech  (which  was  "upon  the  elements  of  character 
essential  to  success)  he  seems  to  have  embodied  and  presented 
the  practical  principles  that  have  governed  his  whole  life. 
As  such,  we  commend  it  to  special  attention  and  study. 

The  other  was  on  the  delivery  of  prize  medals  to  the  success 
ful  declaimers  of  the  Sophmore  class  of  the  State  University, 
in  1859.  Let  not  our  readers  be  deceived  by  the  conversational 
and  common-place  opening  of  it  to  slight  the  classical  beauty 
that  it  teems  with  before  the  close.  It  will  be  found  in  the 
collection  as  the  "Athens  Literary  Speech." 

The  earnest  and  impressive  speech  in  defence  of  Mr.  Corwin, 
and  the  Gralphin  Claim,  was  delivered  in  the  House,  January 
13th,  1853.  It  effectually  hushed  the  cry  of  "  Galphinism,"  as 
it  was  called  ever  afterward. 

On  the  17th  day  of  February,  1854,  Mr.  Stephens  delivered 
one  of  his  most  effective  speeches  on -the  exciting  subject  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska.  It  was  in  this  speech  that  he  reviewed 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  showed  that  they  were 
correctly  carried  out  in  that  famed  act.  The  impression  pro 
duced  by  this  speech  may  be  gathered  from  the  remarks  of  a 
correspondent,  who  did  not  agree  with  him  in  politics,  pub 
lished  in  the  Pennsylvania™,  at  that  time.  After  an  illustration 
of  the  adage  that  appearances  are  often  deceptive,  the  writer 
proceeds  to  speak  of  Mr.  Stephens  thus : 

"And  yet  this  ungainly-looking  individual — with  head  and  face 
constructed  contrary  to  the  rules  of  physiognomy  and  phrenology 
— is  considered  by  many  the  ablest  member  of  the  House,  and  of  a 
House,  too,  that  can  boast  some  of  the  best  minds  of  the  country. 


96  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

Mr.  Stephens  is  slightly  above  the  medium  height,  and  painfully 
thin  in  appearance.  His  head  is  small  and  flat ;  his  forehead  low, 
and  partially  covered  with  straight,  dark,  lustre-lacking  hair ;  and 
his  cheeks  thin,  wrinkled,  and  of  parchment  texture.  His  walk, 
his  features,  his  figure,  bespeak  great  physical  emaciation.  You 
look  in  vain  for  some  outward  manifestation  of  that  towering, 
commanding  intellect  which  has  held  the  congregated  talent  of 
the  whole  country  spell-bound  for  hours.  It  is  not  in  the  eye,  for 
it  is  dull  and  heavy.  It  is  not  in  the  face,  for  it  is  meaningless. 
It  is  not  in  the  voice,  for  it  is  shrill  and  sharp ;  but  still  you  feel 
convinced  that  the  feeble,  tottering  being  before  you  is  all  brain 
— brain  in  the  head,  brain  in  the  arms,  brain  in  the  legs,  brain  in 
the  body — that  the  whole  man  is  charged  and  surcharged  with 
electricity  of  intellect — that  a  touch  would  bring  forth  the  divine 
spark  1" 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Stephens'  personal  appearance  at  this  time, 
it  may  be  proper  to  add,  that  he  was  just  from  a  bed  of  severe 
illness.  He  was  not  able  to  walk  to  the  Capitol.  The  day  be 
fore  was  the  first  time  he  had  been  out  for  more  than  two 
months.  He  was  just  recovering  from  another  abscess  of  the 
liver,  which  had  terminated  like  the  first  one.  This  attack  came 
on  in  the  fall  of  1853.  He  had  also  been  confined  to  his  room 
nearly  the  whole  summer  of  1853,  in  consequence  of  injuries 
received  from  a  railroad  accident.  A  train  of  cars,  on  which 
he  was  travelling,  was  thrown  from  the  track  near  Macon, 
Georgia,  on  the  9th  of  June  of  this  year.  His  right  shoulder 
was  injured,  right  collar-bone  broken,  left  elbow  crushed,  and 
a  severe  gash  received  upon  the  head,  causing,  from  its  effects, 
serious  apprehension  for  some  hours  that  his  skull  was  frac 
tured.* 

*  The  following  is  only  one  of  the  many  expressions  of  sympathy  that 
he  received,  while  suffering  from  this  accident : 

BOSTON,  June  17,  1853. 
"  MY  DEAR  SIR  : — 

"  I  have  been  much  concerned  to  see  by  the  papers  that  you  have 
suffered  severe  injury  by  a  railroad  accident.  Newspapers  so  often  ex- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  97 

While  again  upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  Stephens'  health,  we 
may  here  properly  add  that,  in  1851,  he  suffered  from  another 
severe  and  protracted  attack,  similar,  in  some  respects,  to  the 
one  of  1837,  leaving  him  in  a  state  of  equal  prostration.  He 
was  laid  up  nearly  all  the  summer,  and  when  convalescent,  he 
was  again  carried  about  his  room,  and  the  house,  and  into  the 
yard  and  garden,  as  a  child,  by  his  favorite  colored  servant, 
who  was  then,  as  now,  generally  known  as  Harry  Stephens. 
His  weight  then  was  but  eighty  pounds.  Since  the  last  abscess 
of  the  liver  his  general  health  has  been  better  than  ever  since 
1836.  The  "dyspeptic  horribles"  and  severe  "headache's,"  with 
their  attendant  afflictions,  left  him  with  that  attack,  it  is  hoped, 
never  to  return.  Other  maladies,  however,  succeeded;  and  of 
these  Nephritic  Calculus  is  perhaps  the  worst.  From  this  he 
suffers  occasionally  most  excruciatingly.  Upon  the  whole, 
however,  as  to  general  health  and  physical  strength,  he  is -as 
well  off  now,  in  the  summer  of  1866,  as  he  ever  was  in  his  life.* 

To  return  to  our  subject-matter — the  speeches — the  statisti 
cal  one  in  reply  to  Mr.  Cambell  ("  GEORGIA  AND  OHIO  AGAIN") 
is  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  interesting  in  this  volume.  It 
was  made  under  the  following  circumstances : — On  the  14th 
day  of  December,  1854,  Mr.  Mace,  of  Indiana,  made  a  speech, 
in  which  he  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill  to 
repeal  the  Kansas -Nebraska  act,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  forever 
from  these  territories.  In  this  speech  Mr.  Mace  had  spoken 

aggerate,  that  I  cannot  but  hope  it  is  not  so  bad  as  represented.  If  not 
too  much  trouble,  pray  let  me  have  a  line  from  yourself,  containing 
authentic  information. 

"  With  much  regard,  faithfully  yours, 

EDWARD  EVERETT. 
"  Hon.  A.  H.  STEPHENS." 

*  At  one  time  this  year,  he  weighed  one  hundred  and  one-half  pounds. 
He  is  five  feet  ten  inches  high,  and  did  not  get  his  full  growth  until  he 
was  twenty-seven  years  old.  He  grew  two  inches  after  he  was  admitted 
to  the  bar,  which  was  when  he  was  twenty-two  years  and  five  months 
old.  He  cut  his  last  tooth  in  his  twenty-seventh  year. 
7 


98  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

of  slavery  as  injurious  to  the  industry  and  the  development 
of  the  physical  resources  of  a  country.  Mr.  Stephens  made 
impromptu  one  of  his  happiest,  off-hand  replies.  The  whole 
of  the  speech  is  in  this  volume,  but  the  concluding  part  was  in 
these  words,  as  reported  next  morning  in  the  Globe. 

"  A  few  facts  in  reference  to  physical  development.  I  had  oc 
casion,  some  time  since,  for  another  purpose  than  the  present,  to 
look  a  little  into  the  statistics  of  Georgia,  compared  with  those 
of  other  States.  I  selected  the  State  of  Ohio,  because  it  was  one 
of  the  most  prosperous  of  the  North — often  styled,  and,  perhaps, 
justly  too,  the  Giant  of  the  West.  According  to  the  census  re 
turns  in  1850,  Ohio  had  of  improved  lands  9,851,493  acres. 
Georgia  had  only  6,378,419  acres.  The  cash  value  of  the  Georgia 
land,  so  improved  and  under  culture,  was  $95,753,445  ;  while  the 
cash  value  of  the  Ohio  lands  was  returned  at  $358,758,603. 
Ohio  had  nearly  one  third  more  land  in  a  state  of  improvement 
than  Georgia  had,  and  returned  at  more  than  three  times  the 
cash  value  of  the  Georgia  lands.  The  whole  population  of  Ohio 
was  1,908,480  ;  the  whole  population  of  Georgia,  white  and  black, 
was  905,999.  The  population  of  Ohio,  therefore,  was  more  than 
double  that  of  Georgia.  Here  we  see  her  free  labor  more  than 
double  in  number,  working  one  third  more  land,  worth  by  valua 
tion,  more  than  three  times  that  of  Georgia.  From  these  ele 
ments  it  might  not  be  surprising  to  see  her  agricultural  products 
greatly  exceeding  those  of  Georgia,  without  resorting  to  the 
1  curse  of  slavery'  to  account  for  it.  But  how  stand  the  facts  ? 
Ohio  produced  the  following  articles : 

Wheat. 14,487,351  bushels  at  80  cents  $11,589,880 

Buckwheat 638,060        "             40     "  ....  255,224 

Indian  corn 59,078,695        "             30     "  17,723,608 

Eye 425,918        "             50     "  ....  212,959 

Barley 354,358        "              50     "  ....  177,179 

Oats..... 13,472,742        "             25     "  ....  3,368,182 

Peas  and  beans 60,168        "  $100  60,168 

Irish  potatoes 5,057,769         "             40  cents  2,023,107 

Sweet  potatoes 187,991        "             50     "  ....  93,995 

Tobacco 10,454,449  pounds           7     "  ....'  731,811 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  99 

Cloverseed 103,197  bushels  $4  00               412,748 

Flax 446,932  pounds         10  cents    44,693 

Flaxseed 188,880  bushels        75      "        141,660 

Maple  sugar 4,588,209  pounds           6      "  ....  275,292 

Molasses 197,308  gallons         35      "        69,057 

Wine 48,207         "        $100               48,207 

Garden  products,  returned  in  money  value         ....  ....  214,004 

Orchard       "                 "                 "             "  695,921 


Aggregate $38,137,695 

"  This  list  includes  nearly  every  agricultural  product  of  the 
earth  in  that  State  except  hay,  which  is  omitted,  because  in 
Georgia  there  is  no  return  for  fodder,  which,  in  'that  State, 
answers  the  same  purpose  of  hay  in  Ohio  as  food  for  stock.  The 
quantity  of  each  product  produced  is  given  from  the  census 
tables.  The  values  run  out  are  such  as  are  believed  to  be  the 
usual  average  values  of  each  article  in  that  State,  except  the  pro 
ducts  of  gardens  and  orchards,  which  are  taken  from  the  tables 
. — no  other  values  are  put  upon  the  products  in  the  tables.  The 
estimate  above  stated  is  believed  to  be  a  fair  one.  Now  let  us 
take  up  the  returns  for  Georgia,  and  place  upon  them  a  like  esti 
mated  average  value.  Here  we  have : 

Wheat 1,088,534  bushels      at      $100   $1,088,534 

15,040,049 
15,970,912 
1,558,027 
1,142,011 
1,746,607 
113,689 
1,432,516 
98,520 
54,037 
92,766 
76,500 

Aggregate  $38,414,168 

"  An  amount  so  far  from  falling  under  that  of  Ohio,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  actually  exceeds  it  above  a  quarter  of  a 
million,  without  extending  the  Georgia  list  to  rye,  barley,  tobacco, 


499,091  400  Ibs. 
38,950,691  pounds 
1,142,011  bushels                 $ 
6,986,528 
227,378 
3,820,044 
1,642  hh4s.,  1000  Ibs., 
216,150  gallons 

8   .... 
4  .... 
100   .... 
25  .... 

50   .... 
37*.... 
6   .... 
25   .... 

Peas  and  beans  

Irish  potatoes  

Oats     

Molasses     .    .        .  .  .  . 

Orchard  products  of  . 

Garden,  products  of  . 

100  ALEXANDEK   H.   STEPHENS. 

and  other  articles  which  are  produced  in  that  State.  Away, 
then,  with  this  prating  cry  about  slavery's  paralyzing  the  energy 
of  a  people,  and  opposing  the  development  of  the  resources 
of  a  country. 

"  If  I  were  to  take  the  statistics  of  any  other  State,  and  go 
through  them  in  the  same  way,  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
an  equally  favorable  result  to  Georgia  would  follow.  I  took  tho 
State  of  Ohio,  not  as  any  disparagement  to  her,  but  to  show  that 
even  in  the  South,  where  they  say  the  soil  is  sterile,  and  the  pop 
ulation  inert,  and  cursed  with  slavery,  as  it  is  said  to  be,  Georgia, 
with  one  half  of  the  population,  and  only  two  thirds  of  the  value 
of  land,  exceeds  in  agricultural  products,  by  one  quarter  of  a 
million  of  dollars,  the  great  Giant  of  the  West. 

"  Now,  then,  if  the  people  of  Kansas,  the  people  of  Nebraska, 
or  the  people  of  any  other  portion  of  our  territory,  going  from  old 
Massachusetts,  going  from  New  York,  or  from  Indiana,  or  from  the 
South,  learning  and  consulting  wisdom  from  the  past,  and  profiting 
by  experience  from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  should  think  it  practi 
cally  best  for  the  happiness  of  themselves  and  for  their  posterity  in 
the  far  distant  future,  to  adopt  the  social  institutions  of  Georgia  in 
preference  to  those  of  Indiana,  if  they  prefer  the  institutions  of  the 
South  to  those  of  the  North,  I  say  they  should  not  be  deprived  of 
their  right  to  do  it,  and  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  and  those  who 
act  with  him,  should  not  set  themselves  up  as  judges  and  'masters' 
.0  control  the  matter." 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

To  this  speech  of  Mr.  Stephens,  Hon.  Lewis  D.  Campbell  of 
Ohio  replied  briefly  on  the  same  day.  His  speech,  however,  was 
not  published  until  sometime  after.  When  published  it  was 
greatly  elaborated  with  voluminous  statistical  tables  gotten  up 
in  the  meantime  to  controvert  the  positions  of  Mr.  Stephens. 

The  great  rejoinder,  entitled  "Georgia  and  Ohio  again,"  in 
reply  to  Mr.  Campbell's  speech  and  his  tables,  was  delivered  in 
the  House,  on  the  15th  of  January,  1855.  It  is  one  of  the  ablest 
statistical  papers  ever  prepared,  and  one  that  cost  Mr.  Stephens 
much  labor. 


ALEXANDEK  H.  STEPHENS.  101 

The  impression  made  upon  the  public  by  the  new  facts  and 
startling  conclusions  of  this  speech,  may  be  estimated  by  its 
effect  upon  Mr.  John  C.  Rives,  who,  at  that  time,  had  the  con 
trol  of  the  Congressional  Grlobe.  Mr.  Rives,  in  pursuance  of 
his  habit  of  close  personal  attention  to  his  business,  looked 
over  the  speech  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  reporters,  and 
the  accompanying  statistical  tables  which  Mr.  Stephens  had 
furnished  to  be  inserted  in  the  right  place.  He  was  imme 
diately  struck  with  what  seemed  to  him  the  impossibility  of  the 
correctness  of  the  tables.  Knowing  Mr.  Stephens'  usual  accu 
racy  in  all  matters  of  fact,  and  being  also  his  personal  friend, 
and  feeling  solicitous  that  his  well-earned  reputation  in  this 
particular  should  not  be  put  to  the  blush,  he  sent  for  Mr. 
Stephens  and  stated  to  him  his  doubts  as  to  the  possibility 
of  the  facts,  and  suggested  the  propriety  of  withholding  the 
publication  of  the  tables,  supposing,  as  he  said,  that  they  had 
been  carelessly  prepared  by  some  other  person,  and  had  not 
undergone  his  own  close  examination.  When  Mr.  Stephens 
informed  him  that  they  were  his  own  work,  and  that  he  was 
prepared  to  maintain  their  entire  accuracy,  Mr.  Rives,  with  a 
mixture  of  mirth  and  friendly  anxiety,  gave  him  to  understand 
that  he  had  really  thought  the  tables  had  been  prepared  by 
somebody  who  didn't  know  what  he  was  about ;  but  since  they 
were  Mr.  Stephens'  own  work,  he  could  see  them  go  to  the 
public  with  his  misgivings  diminished  but  not  removed.  The 
tables,  and  the  novel  conclusions  deduced  from  them,  appeared 
in  the  next  morning's  Globe;  and  their  accuracy  has  never  yet 
been  successfully  assailed. 

The  subjoined  engraving  of  Mr.  Stephens  in  this  sketch,  is 
from  the  Imperial  Photograph  by  Brady,  which  adorns  the 
mantel-piece  of  Mr.  Stephens'  private  room,  and  was  intended 
to  represent  him  as  he  stood,  during  the  delivery  of  that 
masterly  speech.  It  is  given  in  full  in  this  volume. 

The  following  sketch  of  his  appearance  and  power  at  that  period 
is  from  the  Washing4  on  correspondent  of  the  Frederick  Citizen- 


102  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

"  WASHINGTON,  February  28,  1855. 

"  Near  the  bar  of  the  House,  to  the  right  of  the  main  aisle,  facing 
the  speaker,  sits  a  man  whose  singular  appearance  alwa}^s  arrests 
the  attention  of  the  stranger.  You  should  note  him  well,  for  he  is 
one  of  the  marked  characters  of  the  House." 


"  It  is  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia.  And  do  you  call 
that  curious-looking  creature  one  of  the  marked  characters  of  the 
House  ?  say  you.  Yes,  every  word  of  it.  True,  there  is  no  mark 
of  extraordinary  intellectuality  in  his  countenance  ;  but  draw 
him  out  in  debate,  do  any  thing  to  set  at  work  the  powerful  intel 
lectual  battery  within,  and  that  poor,  sickly,  emaciated  frame, 
which  looks  as  if  it  must  sink  under  the  slightest  physical  exer 
tion,  at  once  grows  instinct  with  a  galvanic  vitality  which  quickens 
every  nerve  with  the  energy  of  a  new  life,  imparts  to  every  fea 
ture  a  high,  intellectual  expression,  makes  the  languid  eyes  glow 
like  living  coals,  and  diffuses  a  glow  of  reviving  animation  over 
the  pallid  countenance. 

"A  new  spirit  seems  to  be  awakened  within  him  which  trans 
forms  the  whole  man  into  a  new  creature  in  appearance.  You 
cease  to  be  annoyed  by  that  voice  which  pierces  the  ear  with  its 
shrill  and  discordant  tones,  and  the  awkward  gestures  seem  awk 
ward  no  longer,  for  they  are  evidently  prompted  by  nature.  No 
wonder  that  nature  has  slighted  the  outward  man,  since  she  has 
lavished  her  rarest  gifts  upon  the  inward  with  unsparing  profu 
sion.  The  intellectual  power  of  the  man  seems  so  to  transfigure 
the  outward  appearance,  so  to  transfer  its  quickening  and  trans 
forming  spirit  into  the  physical  nature,  that  the  emaciated  figure 
before  you  looks  as  much  like  intellect  incarnate,  as  can  well  be 
imagined.  He  hurries  through  the  exordium,  announces  the  sub 
ject,  lays  down  his  propositions,  and  advances  at  once  to  the 
argument,  which  he  follows  out  with  logical  exactness,  weaving 
into  the  thread  of  it  such  facts  as  are  proper  for  illustration,  and 
drawing  out  conclusions  which  the  most  subtle  ingenuity  cannot 
avert.  Now  he  advances  to  the  arguments  of  the  other  side,  dis 
sects  them  wit  admirable  delicacy,  exposes  a  fallacy  here  and 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  103 

a  misstatement  of  facts  there ;  here  a  non  sequiter,  and  there  a 
petitio  principii ;  now  some  insidious  reflection  upon  the  South 
touches  his  sensitive  feelings  on  that  subject,  and  forth  there 
issues  a  flame  of  withering  invective,  which,  made  doubly  hot  by 
his  envenomed  sarcasm,  scathes  its  victim  as  with  the  blasting- 
touch  of  the  lightning ;  now  he  is  all  on  fire  with  interest  in  his 
subject,  and  seems  to  catch  the  inspiration  of  eloquence,  as,  with 
more  than  mortal  power,  he  summons  forth  the  feelings  of  the 
audience,  and  sways  them  in  alternate  emotions  of  anger,  indig 
nation,  pity,  love,  and  all  the  passions  of  the  human  breast. 

"A  death-like  silence  reigns  over  the  vast  Hall,  broken  only  b}' 
the  reverberating  tones  of  the  speaker's  voice.  Senators  have 
deserted  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol,  and,  side  by  side  with 
members,  are  sitting  as  under  a  spell  which  they  cannot  break ; 
Mr.  Speaker  has  thrown  down  his  hammer,  which  generally  knows 
no  rest,  and  has  forgotten  to  keep  an  eye  upon  the  clock,  that 
the  member  on  the  floor  may  not  break  through  the  '  hour  rule' ; 
pages  have  almost  lost  their  power  of  perpetual  motion,  and  are 
now  subdued  into  a  stillness  like  unto  death  ;  reporters  look  like 
the  '  mediums'  with  the  spell  upon  them,  inditing  revelations  from 
the  spirit  world ;  while  from  the  overhanging  galleries,  graced 
with  a  brilliant  array  of  beauty  and  fashion,  a  thousand  eyes  are 
riveted  on  the  speaker  as  on  a  'charmer,'  with  an  air  of  bewil 
dered  amazement,  nor  dare  they  turn  to  each  other  for  a  moment, 
for  an  interchange  of  those  sympathetic  glances,  which  bring  so 
much  relief  to  the  human  heart  when  swayed  by  such  emotions." 

When,  in  1855,  the  mystic  Sam — the  know-nothing  giant — 
was  striding  on  to  power,  the  North  seemed  bowing  before  his 
chariot- wheels ;  but  in  Virginia  and  Georgia,  Henry  A. Wise  and 
Alexander  H.  Stephens  stood  up  in  the  breach  and  said,  "  Thus 
far  shalt  thou  come,  and  no  farther."  The  first  mighty  blow 
upon  the  helmet  of  the  giant  was  the  letter  of  Mr.  Stephens,  to 
his  friend,  Judge  Thomas  W.  Thomas,  May  9th,  1855.  It  is 
one  of  the  best  efforts  of  Mr.  Stephens,  and  given  in  full  in 


104  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

this  book.  We  will  not  mar  the  "feast  of  reason"  by  sampling 
this  dish.  Being  abandoned  by  many  old  friends,  the  Georgian 
entered  the  lists  almost  alone.  He  announced  his  own  candi 
dacy  from  the  City  Hall,  in  Augusta,  and  by  an  appeal  to  his 
unassailable  record,  at  the  outset  defied  personal  attack,  and 
startled  and  alarmed  the  opposition.  His  plan  was  not  to 
defend  himself,  but  to  assail  the  opposition. 

Before  giving  an  extract  from  that  opening  speech,  it  may  be 
as  well  to  state  as  follows :  He  had  been  continuously  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  from  1843  until  the  close  of  Congress  in  the 
spring  of  1855  ;  sometimes  with  party  nominations,  and  some 
times  with  the  common  consent  of  all  parties,  without  any 
regular  nomination.  Opposition  to  him  was  deemed  almost 
useless,  and  when  made,  it  was  generally  with  a  view  to  pre 
serving  the  party  organization  of  a  minority.  In  this  instance, 
of  his  own  accord,  he  became  a  candidate  by  his  own  announce 
ment.  We  give  it  in  his  own  words,  as  follows : 

FELLOW-CITIZENS: — Two  years  ago,  or  a  little  less,  I  ap 
peared  before  you  in  the  same  place  where  I  now  stand.  I  had 
been  put  in  nomination  for  Congress  informally,  by  a  portion  of 
the  people  in  this,  as  well  as  in  several  other  counties  of  the 
district.  In  responding  to  that  call,  on  that  occasion,  I  stated, 
as  many  of  you  doubtless  recollect,  that  I  had  no  pledge  to  give, 
except  that  if  I  should  be  returned,  it  would  be  my  utmost 
endeavor  so  to  discharge  my  duties  as  your  representative,  that 
no  man  in  the  district,  or  in  the  State,  whether  whig  or 
democrat,  should,  upon  the  expiration  of  my  term  of  office, 
have  just  reason  or  cause  to  say,  that  his  rights,  interest,  or 
honor,  or  the  rights,  interest,  or  honor  of  Georgia,  had  suffered 
detriment  at  my  hands.  With  this  pledge  I  was  elected.  The 
term  of  office  to  which  I  was  so  chosen  expired  the  4th  of  March 
last.  My  acts,  as  your  representative,  are  known  to  all  of  you. 
They  have  been  subjected  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny.  And 
before  proceeding  further  with  what  I  have  to  say  this  night,  I 
wish  to  ask  if  there  is  a  man  in  this  very  large  assembly  [called 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  105 

together  without  distinction  of  party]  who  feels  that  the  pledge 
then  given  has  not  been  redeemed  ?  Is  there  a  whig  here,  or  a 
democrat,  or  a  '  know-nothing,'  or  an  '  anti-know-nothing' — a 
Protestant  or  a  Catholic — a  native  or  a  naturalized  citizen — who 
will  say  that  he  feels  that  his  rights,  interests,  or  honor,  or  the 
rights,  interests,  or  honor  of  the  district  or  State,  so  far  as  they 
were  committed  to  me,  have  sustained  injury  in  my  hands  ?  If  so, 
let  him  speak.  Let  him  name  in  what  I  came  short  of  duty,  or 
what  single  act  I  did,  of  which  he  has  cause  to  complain.  I 
pause  for  a  reply.  No  one  answers.  Then  may  I  not  be  bold 
enough  to  presume  that  my  public  conduct  during  the  official 
term  which  is  now  terminated,  meets  the  approbation  of  all  ?" 

Later  in  his  speech,  he  thus  spoke  of  proscription  for  FOREIGN 
BIRTH,  or  CATHOLIC  FAITH  : 

"  Members  of  the  Order  may  deny  it,  and  say,  as  some  do,  that 
they  '  are  pledged  for  religious  freedom  to  every  church,  be  it 
Catholic  or  Protestant.'  But  every  one  of  them  knows,  and 
whether  they  deny  it  or  not,  there  is  a  secret  monitor  within  that 
tells  them  they  have  pledged  themselves  never  to  vote  for  any 
Roman  Catholic  to  any  office  of  profit  or  trust.  They  have  thus 
pledged  themselves  to  set  up  a  religious  test  in  qualifications  for 
office,  against  the  express  words  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  words  of  the  constitution  are  : 

"  '  But  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required,  as  a  qualification 
to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  LTnited  States.' 

"  The  words  of  Scripture  are : 

"  '  And  the  Lord  commanded  the  man,  saying,  of  every  tree  of 
the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat,  but  of  the  tree  of  the  knowl 
edge  of  good  and  evil  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  for  in  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.' 

"  So  of  all  the  reasons  you  may  have  or  objections  or  disquali 
fications  you  may  make,  in  the  selection  of  men  to  office  or 
places  of  public  trust  under  the  United  States,  you  may  make 
any  other  test  but  this  religious  test — the  test  of  '  good  and  evil1  in 
the  conscience  of  men — that  you  cannot  make  under  the  con 
stitution ;  that  test  our  great  lawgivers,  with  Washington,  the 


106  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

4 

Father  of  his  country  at  their  head,  said  '  shall  not  be  required. ' 
This  is  the  for  bid  den  fruit.     Of  it  thou  shalt  not  eat  and  live. 
******* 

"  It  proposes  to  put  a  large  class  of  as  true  native-born  citizens 
as  any  in  the  United  States,  under  the  ban  of  civil  proscription. 
And  whenever  any  government  denies  to  any  class  of  its  citizens 
any  equal  participation  in  the  privileges,  immunities,  and  honors 
enjoyed  by  all  others,  it  parts  with  all  just  claims  to  their 
allegiance.  Allegiance  is  due  only  so  long  as  protection  is  ex 
tended  ;  and  protection  necessarily  implies  an  equality  of  right 
to  stand  or  fall,  according  to  merit,  amongst  all  the  members  of 
society  or  the  citizens  of  the  commonwealth.  When  native  Cath 
olics,  therefore,  or  any  other  class  of  citizens,  be  they  Methodist, 
or  Baptist,  or  Presbyterians,  are  practically  denied  the  equality 
of  right  in  the  administration  of  their  government,  they  will 
naturally  become  its  enemies ;  and  they  ought  to.  The  result, 
sooner  or  later,  will  be  strife,  civil  discord,  and  civil  war.  Men 
so  situated,  sooner  or  later  will  fight.  The  best  of  our  Protestant 
friends,  under  like  circumstances,  would  fight,  too.  For  the  best 
of  men,  after  all,  have  enough  of  the  old  leaven  of  human  nature 
left  about  them  to  fight  when  they  feel  aggrieved,  outraged,  and 
trampled  upon  ;  and,  strange  to  say,  when  men  get  to  fighting 
about  religion,  they  fight  harder,  and  longer,  and  more  extermi- 
natingly,  than  upon  any  other  subject.  The  history  of  the  world 
teaches  this.  Many  of  the  bloody  wars  that  rest  as  a  blot  and 
stain  upon  Christendom,  attest  it.  The  tendencjr  of  this  move 
ment,  therefore,  so  far  as  this  branch  of  it  is  concerned,  is  to  civil 
war — just  as  inevitably  as  a  collision  of  two  engines  meeting  on 
your  railroad  track,  unless  checked  in  their  progress,  tends  to 
their  destruction.  It  is  the  first  movement  of  the  kind  since  the 
formation  of  our  government.  Already  we  see  the  spirit  abroad 
which  is  to  enkindle  the  fires  and  set  the  faggots  ablazing.  Not 
by  the  Catholics,  they  are  comparatively  few  and  weak.  Their 
only  safety  is  in  the  shield  of  the  constitutional  guarantee.  Mi 
norities  seldom  assail  majorities  ;  and  persecutions  always  begin 
with  the  larger  numbers  against  the  smaller.  But  this  spirit  is 
evinced  by  one  of  the  numerous  replies  to  my  letter.  It  says  : 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  107 

'  We  call  upon  the  children  of  the  Puritans  of  the  North,  and 
the  Huguenots  of  the  South — by  the  remembrance  of  the  fires  of 
Smithfield,  and  the  bloody  St.  Bartholomew — to  lay  down  for 
once  all  sectional  difficulties,'  etc.,  and  to  join  in  this  great 
American  movement  of  proscribing  Catholics.  What  is  this 
but  the  tocsin  of  intestine  strife  ?  Why  call  up  the  remembrance 
of  the  fires  of  Smithfield,  but  to  whet  the  Protestant  appetite  for 
vengeance  ?  Why  stir  up  the  quiet  ashes  of  bloody  St.  Barthol 
omew,  but  for  the  hope,  perhaps,  of  finding  therein  a  slumbering 
spark  from  which  new  fires  ma}?"  be  started  ?  Why  exhume  the 
atrocities,  cruelties,  and  barbarities  of  ages  gone  by,  from  the 
repose  in  which  they  have  been  buried  for  hundreds  of  years, 
unless  it  be  to  reproduce  the  seeds  and  spread  amongst  us  the 
same  moral  infection  and  loathsome  contagion  ?  just  as  it  is  said 
the  plague  is  sometimes  occasioned  in  London,  by  disentombing 
and  exposing  to  the  atmosphere  the  latent  virus  of  the  fell  disease 
still  lingering  in  the  dusty  bones  of  those  who  died  of  it  centu 
ries  ago  ?" 

During  the  same  canvass  lie  was  complimented  by  a  public 
dinner  at  Appling,  Columbia  county,  Georgia,  on  the  llth  of 
July,  1855.  Also  one  in  Sparta,  Georgia,  and  made  speeches 
in  both  places. 

From  the  time  of  the  announcement  of  his  candidacy,  until 
the  election,  the  contest  was  the  most  bitter  and  fierce  that  had 
ever  been  in  the  district.  The  odds  seemed  greatly  against  him 
at  the  beginning.  He  spoke  in  every  county  in  the  district. 
In  some,  three  or. four  times  at  different  places.  The  three 
speeches  we  have  spoken  of  were  the  only  ones  reported  in 
full  for  the  press,  and  they  only  imperfectly. 

He  was  triumphantly  returned  to  Congress.  He  began  with 
a  majority  of  about  three  thousand  against  him,  and  the  vote 
recorded  about  three  thousand  in  his  favor. 

His  influence  in  Congress  lost  nothing  by  the  fiery  ordeal 
he  had  passed  at  home. 

The  famed  debate  with  Zollicoffer,  the  eloquent  Tennes- 
seean,  on  the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  or  prohibit 


108  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

slavery  in  the  Territories,  took  place  in  the  House,  January 
17th,  1856. 

June  28th,  1856,  he  spoke  on  the  Topeka  Constitution  and 
admission  of  Kansas  under  it.  His  opponents  have  often 
attempted  to  confuse  him  by  interruptions,  but  invariably  get 
worsted  in  the  attempt.  The  following,  from  that  speech,  will 
illustrate  his  readiness  in  debate. 

Speaking  of  the  restriction  of  1820,  he  said  : — 

"  Here  is  also  Mr.  Madison's  emphatic  opinion  against  the  same 
measure.  I  cannot  take  up  nry  time  in  reading  it.  I  state  the 
fact,  and  challenge  contradiction.  Jefferson  was  against  the  re 
striction  of  1820.  Madison  was  against  it,  and  Jackson  was 
against  it.  No  man  can  deny  these  facts.  It  was  reluctantly 
accepted  by  the  South,  however,  as  an  alternative,  and  only  as 
an  alternative,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony.  And  who  are 
those  now  who  call  it  a  sacred  compact  ?  Those  very  men,  the 
gentleman  and  his  party,  who  denounced  every  man  from  the 
North  as  'a  dough-face,'  who  from  1846  to  1850  was  in  favor  of 
abiding  by  it  for  the  sake  of  union  and  harmony.  Not  a  man 
can  be  named  from  the  North  who  was  willing  to  abide  by  that 
line  of  division  during  the  period  I  have  stated,  who  was  not  de 
nounced  by  the  gentleman  and  his  party  as  '  a  dough-face.'  Who 
now  are  the  '  dough-faces  ?'  And  if  the  gentleman  wishes  to 
know  what  tree  brought  forth  that  bitter  fruit  of  which  he  spoke 
the  other  day,  I  will  tell  him.  It  was  not  the  Kansas  tree,  but 
that  old  political  upas  planted  by  Rufus  King  in  1820.  It  grew 
up  ;  it  nourished,  and  it  sent  its  poisonous  exhalations  throughout 
this  country  till  it  came  well  nigh  extinguishing  the  life  of  the 
Republic  in  1850. 

11  MR.  CAMPBELL.  That  tree  was  planted  when — [Cries  of 
'  Order  !'  '  Order  !'] — when  slavery  was  first  brought  to  the  shores 
of  America.  [Cries  of  '  Order !'  '  Order !'] 

"  MR.  STEPHENS.  Well,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  much  older 
than  the  Kansas  bill.  It  was  planted  before  the  government  was 
formed.  The  constitution  itself  was  grafted  upon  its  stock.  The 
condition  or  slavery  of  the  African  race,  as  it  exists  amongst  us, 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  109 

is  a  '  fixed  fact'  in  the  constitution.  From  this  a  tree  has  indeed 
sprung — bearing,  however,  no  troubles  or  bitter  fruits.  It  is  the 
tree  of  national  liberty,  which,  by  the  culture  of  statesmen  and 
patriots,  has  grown  up  and  flourished,  and  is  now  sending  its 
branches  far  and  wide,  ladened  with  no  fruit  but  national  happi 
ness,  prosperity,  glory,  and  renown. 

"  MR.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  read  the 
preamble  to  the  constitution  ? 

"  MR.  STEPHENS.  Yes ;  and  I  believe  I  can  repeat  it  to  him. 
It  is  'in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice, 
insure  domestic  tranquillity  S 

"Mr.  CAMPBELL.  'And  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  our 
selves  and  our  posterity.' 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  to  themselves  and  their  posterity — 
not  to  the  negroes  and  Africans — and  what  sort  of  liberty  ?  Con 
stitutional  liberty  ;  that  liberty  which  recognized  the  inferior  condi 
tion  of  the  African  race  amongst  them  ;  the  liberty  which  all  the 
States  enjoyed  at  that  time,  save  one  (for  all  were  then  slave-hold 
ing  except  Massachusetts).  That  is  the  sort  of  liberty.  None 
of  your  Socialism  liberty.  None  of  your  Fourierism  liberty. 
Constitutional  liberty — '  law  and  order' — abiding  liberty.  That 
is  the  liberty  which  they  meant  to  perpetuate." 

On  the  "Kansas  Election,"  and  her  "  Contested  Election," 
he  spoke,  February  19th,  1856,  and  March  llth,  1856;  the 
Topeka  speech,  was  June  28th  of  the  same  year. 

On  July  31st,  1856,  he  spoke  at  length  on  the  Eeeder  vs. 
Whitfield  case.  The  celebrated  speech  on  the  presidential  elec 
tion  of  1856,  the  compromise  of  1850,  and  the  Kansas  Act  of 
1854,  was  delivered  in  the  House,  January  6th,  1857.  The 
following  is  a  sketch  of  his  appearance  and  influence  on  that 
occasion,  from  the  correspondence  of  the  Charleston  (South 
Carolina)  Courier,  entitled,  Life  in  Washington: 

"WASHINGTON,  January  7,  1851. 

"  It  had  been  rumored  throughout  the  city — told  in  the  drawing- 
rooms  of  the  hotels,  in  the  private  parlors,  and  in  the  public 


110  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

saloons — that  '  Stephens,  of  Georgia,'  was  to  speak  on  Tuesday 
of  the  present  week,  on  the  all-absorbing  topic  of  slavery.  At 
an  early  hour  the  galleries  were  tilled  to  overflowing  with  the 
families  of  our  distinguished  statesmen,  members  of  the  foreign 
legations,  dashing  belles,  with  a  sprinkling  here  and  there  of  our 
best  residents. 

"As  we  passed  through  the  lobbies  we  were  struck  with  the 
deep  and  reverential  quiet  that  pervaded  the  House.  Where  was 
the  power  that  subdued  the  stormy  confusion  of  this  (always) 
riotous  assembly?  That  vast  crowd  of  listening  faces  were 
turned  toward  a  shrunken  and  attenuated  figure,  the  shoulders 
contracted  and  drawn  in,  the  face  dead  and  of  the  color  of  ashes. 
There  was  something  grand  in  the  mere  spectacle  of  his  shadowy 
figure,  binding  up  the  very  breath  of  the  House  in  a  hush  so 
silent  that  the  unsheathing  of  a  stiletto  might  have  been  heard 
amid  its  stillness. 

"  When  we  entered,  the  speaker  was  pouring  out  a  continuous, 
unintermitted  volume  of  thought  and  language  to  prove  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  people  in  the  territories.*  He  went  on  and  on, 
with  unwearied  rapidity,  arguing,  defining,  illustrating,  repeat 
ing -intricate  facts,  laying  down  subtile  distinctions,  prostrating 
an  objection  here,  seizing  upon  a  fallacy  there ;  then  retracing 
his  steps,  and  re-stating  in  some  original  point  of  view  his  general 
propositions ;  then  flying  off  again  to  the  outskirts  of  the  ques 
tion,  and  dealing  his  desultory  blows  with  merciless  reiteration 
wherever  an  inch  of  ground  remained  to  be  cleared ;  and  during 
the  whole  of  this,  though  his  face  exhibited  signs  of  great  ex 
haustion,  the  god-like  mind  within  did  not  flag  for  a  single 
instant,  nor  even  pause  for  a  topic,  an  idea,  or  an  expression. 
This  velocity  of  creation,  arrangement,  and  delivery  astonished 
us ;  and  what  added  to  our  wonder,  was,  that  it  appeared  to  be 
achieved  without  an  effort.  Mass  after  mass  of  argument  was 
thrown  off  in  phraseology  vigorous  and  appropriate,  while  the 
speaker  seemed  the  mere  organ  of  some  hidden  power  that  saved 

*The  argument  of  Mr.  Stephens,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  speech,  was  in 
illustration  of  his  views  as  to  where  ultimate  sovereignty  rests  under  our 
institutions. — Ed. 


ALEXANDER   H.  STEPHENS.  Ill 

him  the  cost  of  laborious  exertion,  apparently  anxious  to  impress 
upon  others  his  own  reliance  upon  the  force  of  what  seemed  to 
come  unsought. 

"  He  had  little  variety  of  gesture,  and  what  he  used  seemed  per 
fectly  unstudied.  He  was  evidently  so  thoroughly  absorbed  in 
his  subject  as  to  be  quite  unconscious  that  he  had  hands  and 
arms  to  manage.  As  he  proceeded,  he  occasionally  raised  one 
hand,  and  then  suddenly  struck  it  down  with  extraordinary 
force.  The  strength  of  the  action  atoned  for  its  inelegance.  This 
very  disdain  for  the  externals  of  oratory  had  something  imposing 
in  it ;  one  was  made  to  feel  that  he  was  in  the  presence  of  a  pow 
erful  mind  that  looked  to  itself  alone,  and  one  surrendered  oneself 
more  completely  to  its  guidance  from  the  conviction  that  no 
hackneyed  artifice  was  employed  to  allure  our  confidence. 

"  Before  concluding,  his  whole  manner  changed.  His  tones 
grew  solemn  in  their  deep,  sonorous  swell,  as  he  reviewed  his 
political  life.  He  spoke  of  the  measures  he  had  aided  to  pass 
— of  his  part  in  the  compromise  of  1850.  Then,  in  a  strain  of 
matchless  eloquence,  he  proclaimed  his  fidelity  to  the  union  of 
these  States. 

"  He  soared  above  the  commonplaces  of  public  speaking ;  he 
rose  above  the  mere  politician,  and  declared  his  faithfulness  to 
the  principles  on  which  our  Union  is  framed ;  his  faithfulness  to 
the  laws  on  which  it  proceeds  and  operates  ;  his  faithfulness  to 
the  institutions  which  distribute  the  validity,  while  they  secure 
the  unity  of  the  whole. 

"As  he  proceeded,  his  unearthly  face  seemed  to  brighten  into 
fuller  and  ghostlier  meaning ;  his  eye  shone  like  a  sunken  pit  of 
fire  suddenly  disclosed ;  his  attenuated  form  seemed  to  dilate  to 
his  dilating  soul ;  his  voice  seemed  exalted  to  a  trumpet  tone  ; 
the  word  orator  (like  a  transparent  fluttering  in  the  breeze)  flamed 
around  his  every  look,  and  gesture,  and  word,  and  movement. 
The  Speaker's  hammer  descended  in  the  midst  of  this  impassioned 
burst,  leaving  an  impression  upon  the  tingling  ears  of  his  audi 
tors  which  many  will  carry  to  their  graves.  This  speech  is  con 
sidered  a  master-piece,  pure,  lofty,  dignified,  and  impassioned, 


112  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

leaving  an  impression  on  the  public  mind  of  the  patriotic  motives 
and  lofty  objects  of  the  speaker. 

"  The  marked  disproportion  between  the  personnel  and  the 
splendid  intellect  of  Mr.  Stephens  is  most  striking.  If  Rem 
brandt  were  living  in  our  times,  he  should  paint  the  physique  of 
this  remarkable  man.  His  unearthly  face  would  afford  an  appro 
priate  subject  to  the  shadowy  pencil  of  that  great  artist.  There 
should  be  no  gradual  melting  of  colors  into  each  other ;  there 
should  be  no  nice  variety  of  hue — no  sky,  no  flowers,  no  drapery, 
no  marble  ;  but  a  shrunken  and  spectral  figure  should  stand  upon 
the  canvas,  with  the  greater  proportions  of  his  form  in  opacity 
and  shadow,  and  with  a  strong  line  of  light  bre'aking  through  a 
monastic  window  upon  a  few  locks  scattered  upon  a  small  and 
irregularly-shaped  head.  The  pallor  of  the  grave  should  sit  upon 
his  face,  the  features  of  which,  though  destitute  of  all  symmetry 
or  proportion,  yet  derive  from  the  mind  within  an  expression  of 
ghostly  power.  M.  J.  W." 

In  1857,  he  wrote  two  very  interesting  letters  to  Professor 
Williams  Rutherford,  of  the  Georgia  State  University,  giving 
facts  and  reminiscences  connected  with  the  origin  and  construc 
tion  of  the  great  State  railroad,  to  which  we  have  referred  be 
fore.  These  letters,  although  private,  we  are  permitted  to  pub 
lish  for  the  first  time,  as  they  furnish  a  fair  specimen  of  Mr. 
Stephen's  epistolary  style  outside  of  political  topics. 

On  Thursday,  December  17th,  1857,  he  delivered  an  eloquent 
eulogy  upon  Hon.  Andrew  Pickens  Butler,  of  South  Carolina, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  resolutions  in  the  House  and  Senate  on 
his  death.  It  was  extemporaneous,  but  considered  a  model  of 
its  kind.  We  give  the  remarks  in  full : 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  rise,  sir,  to  second  the  motion  for  the  adop 
tion  of  .those  resolutions.  But  before  the  question  is  put,  I  wish 
to  add  a  few  words  to  what  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  in  honor  of  the  memory  of  the  distinguished 
senator  whose  death  has  been  announced.  Judge  Butler  was 
known  to  in?,  personally.  His  immediate  constituents  and  mine 


I 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  113 

are  neighbors.  Nothing  but  the  broad  and  beautiful  Savannah 
separates  them.  Identified  in  interests,  identified  in  habits,  in 
sentiments,  and  in  feelings,  their  sympathies  naturally  commingle 
on  a  common  loss  and  bereavement,  and  such  this  is  considered. 

"  Judge  Butler  possessed,  in  an  eminent  degree,  those  qualities 
that  not  only  secure  the  esteem  and  the  admiration  always  due  to 
genius,  and  learning,  and  talent  of  a  high  order,  but  those  other 
qualities  that  win  the  love  and  the  affection  of  all  who  come 
within  their  range.  He  was  emphatically  a  man  cast  in  an  original 
mould,  of  most  marked  characteristics,  physical  as  well  as  intel 
lectual.  As  the  honorable  gentleman  spoke  of  his  silvery  locks, 
and  majestic  form,  and  stately  person,  and  Roman  countenance. 
I  could  almost  imagine  him  again  standing  in  our  midst.  Those 
of  us  who  knew  that  form,  and  knew  that  gallant  bearing,  with 
the  sense  of  age  and  the  fire  of  youth,  can  never  forget  him.  He 
was  mercurial  in  his  temperament,  more  pointed  in  conversation, 
as  well  as  in  argument,  than  he  was  logical.  But  he  was,  never 
theless,  firm  and  stable. 

"  In  the  social  circle  he  shone  to  great  advantage.  Wit  and 
humor,  drawn  from  classical  sources,  were  his  delight.  He  was 
chaste  in  thought,  and  classical  in  expression.  In  the  busy  pur 
suits  of  life,  the  abstruse  studies  of  the  law,  or  the  labors  that 
devolved  on  him  in  public  life,  he  did  not  forget  the  cultivation 
of  letters.  He  scorned  to  wrangle,  yet  he  had  a  zeal  for  truth. 
In  manner  he  was  easy  and  agreeable — in  intercourse  with  man 
kind,  warm-hearted,  brave,  chivalrous.  None  was  more  liberal ; 
none  more  unoffending ;  none  more  generous,  noble,  or  magnan 
imous. 

"He  was  firm,  though  versatile.  Decision  was  one  of  his 
marked  characteristics.  As  a  judge  and  as  a  legislator,  he  came 
up  to  the  ideal  of  one  of  his  favorite  poets : 

"  '  Justum  et  tenacem  propositi  virum 
Non  civium  ardor  prava  jubentium 
N"on  vultus  instantis  Tyranni 
Mente  quatit  solida.' 

"  Few  men  were  more  amiable  and  mild  in  disposition,  none 
more  resolute  in  purpose. 


114  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"  Sir,  eulogy  is  not  my  object ;  that  may  be  left  for  his  biogra 
pher  or  historian.  He  that  was  a  few  months  ago  with  us,  is 
gone.  Those  places  that  knew  him  so  well,  will  know  him  no 
more.  We,  too,  are  passing  away.  How  brief  the  time  since  the 
voices  of  Lowndes,  of  McDuffie,  of  Calhoun,  and  of  Hamilton, 
were  heard  within  these  walls  !  The  cold  sod  covers  them  to-day. 
The  voice  of  Butler  is  silent  in  the  grave  with  theirs.  These 
were  men  that  stirred,  in  their  day,  empires — a  proud  galaxy,  of 
which  the  gallant  Palmetto  State,  which  they  almost  adored,  may 
well  be  proud.  As  a  mother,  she  may  well  boast  of  such  jewels. 

"But,  the  thought,  how  suggestive,  when  we  see  men  of  such 
character  in  their  day  and  generation,  passing  away,  receding 
from  the  existing  generation — how  suggestive  the  thought — the 
truth  that — 

"  '  When  fame's  loud  trump  hath  blown  its  noblest  blast, 
Though  loud  the  sound,  the  echo  sleeps  at  last ; 
And  glory,  like  the  phoenix  'midst  the  fires, 
Exhales  her  odors,  blazes  and  expires.' 

"  What  shadows  we  are,  and  what  shadows  we  pursue !  How 
transitory  pleasures !  How  unsubstantial  honors !  The  only 
hope  to  the  wise  and  the  good — the  virtuous  good — on  this  earth, 
with  all  their  aspirations  for  honorable  place — and  such  aspira 
tions  are  to  be  great  only  so  far  as  they  are  good — is  the  hope, 
the  day-star  of  promise,  that  hereafter  the  dust  of  these  bodies, 
like  the  ashes  of  that  same  fabled  phoenix,  is  to  be  quickened 
into  newness  of  life  in  a  future  existence,  where  to  each  shall  be 
measured  out  according  to  the  deeds  done  here  in  the  body; 
where  there  shall  be  no  more  strife,  no  more  pain,  no  more  death, 
but  never-ending  immortality.  I  second  the  resolutions." 

While  speaking  of  South  Carolina,  we  will  insert  here  an 
extract  or  two,  from  the  Congressional  Globe,  of  January  26th, 
1853.  It  is  of  interest  as  an  earnest  and  magnanimous  vindi 
cation  of  that  gallant  little  State,  coming  from  one  who  had 
never  received  much,  sympathy  from  her  in  his  political  course. 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment.  I  do  not 
concur  in  the  remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  from  North  Caro- 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  115 

lina  [Mr.  STANLY],  or  in  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  amend 
ment  offered  by  him.  Not  at  all,  sir.  I  do  not  understand  that 
General  Jackson  ever  put  down  nullification  in  this  country. 
When  or  where  ?  That  General  Jackson,  as  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  as  a  citizen,  was  against  the  doctrine  of  nulli 
fication,  as  taught  in  South  Carolina,  I  concede.  But  did 
General  Jackson  ever  put  down  that  doctrine  ?  Did  he  ever 
silence  it  ?  It  is  true,  the  principles  of  the  proclamation  were 
against  that  doctrine.  I  did  not  agree  with  General  Jackson  in 
the  principles  of  that  proclamation,  though  the  gentleman  from 
North  Carolina  might  or  may  have  done  so.  And  so  it  may  have 
been  with  a  majority  of  the  American  people.  But,  sir,  that 
proclamation  did  not  put  down  nullification.  If  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  will  look  to  the  history  of  this  country,  he 
will  find  that  the  spirit  and  principles  of  nullification  were  never 
abandoned  or  put  down  in  South  Carolina.  She  did  not  cease 
her  preparations  for  resistance  until  this  government  abandoned 
the  principles  of  that  policy  against  which  she  was  arrayed. 

"  Mr.  STANLY.  They  were  never  abandoned,  and  never  will  be. 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  They  were  certainly  abandoned  by  the  com 
promise  tariff  bill,  brought  forward  in  the  Senate  for  conciliation, 
and  this  the  gentleman  himself  will  hardly  deny. 

11  Mr.  STANLY.  I  deny  it ;  it  was  denied  at  the  time. 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  not  going  into  a  discussion  of  the  extent 
of  the  abandonment,  at  this  time  and  upon  this  subject.  What 
I  say  is  this  : — The  spirit  of  nullification,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
never  yielded  until  there  was  a  yielding  on  the  part  of  this  gov 
ernment.  It  is  not  my  object  now  to  say  whether  it  was  right  or 
wrong.  I  was,  however,  no  nullifier.  I  did  not  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  nullification,  as  taught  in  South  Carolina,  any  more 
than  I  did  in  the  doctrines  of  the  proclamation ;  but  I  say  that 
the  history  of  the  country  bears  me  out  in  this,  that  General 
Jackson  did  not  put  it  down.  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment." 

Afterward  some  general  debate  occurred,  and  then  again : 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  wish  to  say  only  a  few  words  in  reply.  The 
point  at  issue  between  the  gentleman  and  myself  was,  whether 


116  ALEXANDEK  H.  STEPHENS. 

General  Jackson  put  down  nullification,  and  not  whether  he  was 
a  protective  tariff  man  or  not.  He  was  a  protective  tariff  man 
at  that  time  and  up  to  the  day  of  his  death,  so  far  as  I  know.  I 
grant  that  I  did  not  say  he  was  not,  but  I  stated  that  General 
Jackson  did  not  put  down  nullification.  What  I  stated  was, 
whether  South  Carolina  was  right  or  wrong,  there  was  no  giving 
way  on  her  part  until  conciliation  was  proposed.  This  is  history. 
That  is  the  point. 

"  Mr.  STANLY.    The   gentleman   said   that   they  gave  way   in 
yielding  protection. 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  say  that  they  or  this  government  gave  way 
on  that  act  against  which  South  Carolina  was  contending.  It 
was  this  government  that  first  gave  way  and  let  go.  I  did  not 
say  that  she  entirely  abandoned  protection.  You  have  not  done 
it  to  this  day  ;  even  a  revenue  tariff  is  protective  as  far  as  it  goes. 
We  have  now  a  protective  tariff  upon  most  articles,  of  thirty  per  > 
cent.  I  say  to  the  friends  of  that  kind  of  protective  system  which 
was  established  by  the  acts  of  1828  and  1832,  protection  for  pro 
tection  sake,  not  looking  to  revenue  as  the  object,  did  let  go  so 
far  as  to  agree  that  one  tenth  of  the  duty  above  twenty  per  cent, 
on  all  articles  should  at  stated  periods  be  taken  off,  and  that  all 
above  twenty  per  cent,  should  be  taken  off  at  the  end  of  ten  years. 
Twenty  per  cent,  was  considered  the  standard  of  a  revenue  tariff 
I  say  that  is  letting  go ;  and  I  say,  as  I  repeated  before,  whether 
General  Jackson  was  right  or  wrong  in  being  a  protective  tariff 
man,  or  whether  South  Carolina  was  right  or  wrong  in  her  views, 
I  am  not  going  to  discuss  here.  It  is  not  the  proper  place  ;  but 
I  mean  to  defend  history.  South  Carolina,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  did  maintain  her  attitude  of  resistance,  and  she  stood  up 
to  it  until  the  government  here  gave  way,  and  until  General 
Jackson's  party  here  gave  way.  If  there  was  any  giving  way, 
it  was  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  government.  South  Carolina, 
however  I  may  have  disagreed  with  her  in  her  policy,  never 
quailed  to  the  proclamation.  She  did  not  quail,  but  there  was  a 
giving  way  here.  When  conciliation  was  offered  to  her  upon 
terms  that  met  the  approval  of  her  judgment,  she  yielded,  and 
not  before.  She  may  have  yielded  some  to  patriotism,  too.  This 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  117 

I  believe  she  did.  But  the  olive  branch  came  from  the  Federal 
government.  It  was  not  General  Jackson  or  his  proclamation 
that  put  her  down.  That  is  the  point  I  make." 

January  13th,  1858,  he  spoke  in  the  House,  on  the  arrest  of 
General  Walker  by  Commodore  Paulding.  The  speech  was 
much  praised  ;  it  was  on  the  Neutrality  Laws. 

He  made  the  famed  Lecompton  Eeport,  March  10th,  1858. 

On  the  llth  of  May,  1858,  he  endeared  himself  to  the  hearts 
of  a  worthy  people,  by  his  speech  on  Minnesota  and  alien  suf 
frage. 

The  speech  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Watrous  was  deliv 
ered  December  15th,  1858. 

His  last  speech  in  Congress,  was  that  on  the  admission  of 
Oregon,  February  12th,  1859.  As  an  oration,  it  stands  among 
the  grandest  specimens  of  American  eloquence,  and  it  is  of  in 
terest  beyond  the  splendor  of  its  language  or  the  beauty  of  its 
periods  as  embodying  his  theory  of  our  system  of  republican 
government,  in  both  State  and  territorial  matters.  We  subjoin 
a  passage,  drawn  from  the  vision  of  Ezekiel,  that  for  effect  upon 
his  vast  audience,  and  the  deep  emotion  it  excited,  both  on  the 
floor  and  in  the  galleries,  has  seldom  been  equalled. 

"  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  another  and  entirely  different  aspect  of 
this  question,  I  have  something  special  to  say  to  another  side  of 
the  House — a  distinct  class  in  it.  I  mean  the  members  coming 
from  slaveholding  States.  There  is  evidently  a  feeling  of  opposi 
tion  in  that  quarter  to  the  admission  of  Oregon,  from  a  reluctance 
and  manifest  indisposition  to  increase  the  number  of  what  are 
called  free  States.  This  arises  from  the  apprehension  that,  with 
the  loss  of  the  balance  of  power,  the  rights  of  our  section  upon 
constitutional  questions  will  be  less  secure.  This  may  be  so.  It 
does  not,  however,  necessarily  follow.  But  that  balance  is  already 
gone — lost  by  causes  beyond  your  or  my  control.  There  is  no 
prospect  of  its  ever  being  regained  ;  and,  in  taking  that  ground, 
you  do  but  reverse  the  position  of  our  sectional  opponents  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House.  I  know  it  is  the  tendency  of  power  to 


118  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

encroach  ;  but  let  us  look  to  the  security  which  rests  upon  prin 
ciple,  rather  than  upon  numbers.  The  citadel  of  our  defence  is 
principle  sustained  by  reason,  truth,  honor,  and  justice.  Let  us, 
therefore,  do  justice,  though  the  heavens  fall. 

"  Let  us  not  do  an  indirect  wrong,  for  fear  that  the  recipient 
from  our  hands  of  what  is  properly  due,  will  turn  upon  us  and 
injure  us.  Statesmen  in  the  line  of  duty  should  never  consult 
their  fears.  Where  duty  leads,  there  we  may  never  fear  to  tread. 
In  the  political  world,  great  events  and  changes  are  rapidly 
crowding  upon  us.  To  these  we  should  not  be  insensible.  As 
wise  men,  we  should  not  attempt  to  ignore  them.  We  need  not 
close  our  eyes,  and  suppose  the  sun  will  cease  to  shine  because 
we  see  not  the  light.  Let  us  rather,  with  eyes  and  minds  wride 
awake,  look  around  us  and  see  where  we  are,  whence  we  have 
come,  and  where  we  shall  soon  be,  borne  along  by  the  rapid, 
swift,  and  irresistible  car  of  time.  This  immense  territory  of  the 
west  has  to  be  peopled.  It  is  now  peopling.  New  States  are  fast 
growing  up  ;  and  others,  not  yet  in  embryo,  will  soon  spring  into 
existence.  Progress  and  development  mark  every  thing  in  na 
ture — human  societies,  as  well  as  every  thing  else.  Nothing  in 
thfe  physical  world  is  still ;  life  and  motion  are  in  every  thing ;  so 
in  the  mental,  moral,  and  political.  The  earth  is  never  still.  The 
great  central  orb  is  ever  moving.  Progress  is  the  universal  law 
governing  all  things,  animate  as  well  as  inanimate.  Death  itself 
is  but  the  beginning  of  a  new  life  in  a  new  form.  Our  govern 
ment  and  institutions  are  subject  to  this  all-pervading  power. 
The  past  wonderfully  exemplifies  its  influence,  and  gives  us  some 
shadows  of  the  future. 

"  This  is  the  sixteenth  session  that  I  have  been  here,  and  within 
that  brief  space  of  fifteen  years,  we  have  added  six  States  to  the 
Union — lacking  but  one  of  being  more  than  half  of  the  original 
thirteen.  Upward  of  twelve  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of 
territory — a  much  larger  area  than  was  possessed  by  the  whole 
United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  of  peace  in  IT 83 — have 
been  added  to  our  domain.  At  this  time  the  area  of  our  republic 
is  greater  than  that  of  any  five  of  the  greatest  powers  in  Europe 
all  combined ;  greater  than  that  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  119 

brightest  days  of  her  glory  ;  more  extensive  than  were  Alexan 
der's  dominions  when  he  stood  on  the  Indus,  and  wept  that  he 
had  no  more  worlds  to  conquer.  Such  is  our  present  position  ; 
nor  are  we  yet  at  the  end  of  our  acquisitions. 

*  Our  internal  movements,  within  the  same  time,  have  not  been 
less  active  in  progress  and  development,  than  those  external.  A 
bare  glance  at  these  will  suffice.  Our  tonnage,  when  I  first  came 
to  Congress,  was  but  a  little  over  two  millions ;  now  it  is  upward 
of  five  millions,  more  than  double.  Our  exports  of  domestic  man 
ufactures  were  only  eleven  million  dollars  in  round  numbers  ;  now 
they  are  upward  of  thirty  millions.  Our  exports  of  domestic  pro 
duce,  staples,  etc.,  were  then  under  one  hundred  million  dollars ; 
now  they  are  upward  of  three  hundred  millions  ?  The  amount  of 
coin  in  the  United  States,  was  at  that  time  about  one  hundred  mil 
lions  ;  now  it  exceeds  three  hundred  millions.  The  cotton  crop  then 
was  but  fifty-four  millions ;  now  it  is  upward  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  million  dollars.  We  had  then  not  more  than  five  thousand 
miles  of  railroad  in  operation  ;  we  have  now  not  less  than  twenty- 
six  thousand  miles — more  than  enough  to  encircle  the  globe — and 
at  a  cost  of  more  than  one  thousand  million  dollars.  At  that  time 
Professor  Morse  was  engaged  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  this  Capitol, 
in  experimenting  on  his  unperfected  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph — 
and  there  was  as  much  doubt  about  his  success  as  there  is  at  present 
about  the  Atlantic  cable,  but  now  there  are  more  than  thirty-five 
thousand  miles  in  extent  of  these  iron  nerves  sent  forth  in  every 
direction  through  the  land,  connecting  the  most  distant  points,  and 
uniting  all  together  as  if  under  the  influence  of  a  common  living 
sensorium.  This  is  but  a  glance  at  the  surface ;  to  enter  within 
and  take  the  range  of  other  matters — schools,  colleges,  the  arts,  and 
various  mechanical  and  industrial  pursuits,  which  add  to  the  intelli 
gence,  wealth,  and  prosperity  of  a  people,  and  mark  their  course  in 
the  history  of  nations,  would  require  time ;  but  in  all  would  be  found 
alike  astonishing  results. 

"  This  progress,  sir,  is  not  to  be  arrested.  It  will  go  on.  The  end 
is  not  yet.  There  are  persons  now  living,  who  will  see  over  a  hun 
dred  million  human  beings  within  the  present  boundaries  of  the 
United  States,  to  say  nothing  of  future  extension,  and  perhaps 


120  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

double  the  number  of  States  we  now  have,  should  the  Union  last. 
For  myself,  I  say  to  you,  my  southern  colleagues  on  this  floor,  that 
I  do  not  apprehend  danger  to  our  constitutional  rights,  from  the 
bare  fact  of  increasing  the  number  of  States  with  institutions  dis 
similar  to  ours.  The  whole  governmental  fabric  of  the  United 
States  is  based  and  founded  upon  the  idea  of  dissimilarity  in  the 
institutions  of  the  respective  members.  Principles,  not  numbers, 
are  our  protection.  When  these  fail,  we  have,  like  all  other  people, 
who,  knowing  their  rights,  dare  maintain  them,  nothing  to  rely 
upon  but  the  justice  of  our  cause,  our  own  right  arms  and  stout 
hearts.  With  these  feelings,  and  this  basis  of  action,  whenever 
any  State  comes  and  asks  admission,  as  Oregon  does,  I  am  pre 
pared  to  extend  her  the  hand  of  welcome,  without  looking  into 
her  constitution,  further  than  to  see  that  it  is  republican  in  form, 
upon  our  well-known  American  models. 

"  When  aggression  comes,  if  come  it  ever  shall,  then  the  end 
draweth  nigh.  Then,  if  in  my  day,  I  shall  be  for  resistance,  open, 
bold,  and  defiant.  I  know  of  no  allegiance  superior  to  that 
due  the  hearthstones  of  the  homestead.  This  I  say  to  all.  I  lay 
no  claim  to  any  sentiment  of  nationality  not  founded  upon  the 
patriotism  of  a  true  heart,  and  I  know  of  no  such  patriotism  that 
does  not  centre  at  home.  Like  the  enlarging  circle  upon  the 
surface  of  smooth  waters,  however,  this  can  and  will,  if  unob 
structed,  extend  to  the  utmost  limits  of  a  common  country.  Such 
is  my  nationality — such  my  sectionalism — such  my  patriotism. 
Our  fathers  of  the  South  joined  your  fathers  of  the  North  in 
resistance  to  a  common  aggression  from  their  fatherland ;  and  if 
they  were  justified  in  rising  to  right  a  wrong  inflicted  by  a  parent 
country,  how  much  more  ought  we,  should  the  necessity  ever 
come,  to  stand  justified  before  an  enlightened  world,  in  righting 
a  wrong  from  even  those  we  call  brothers.  That  necessity,  I 
trust,  will  never  come. 

"  What  is  to  be  our  future,  I  do  not  know.  I  have  no  taste  for 
indulging  in  speculations  about  it.  I  would  not,  if  I  could,  raise 
the  vail  that  wisely  conceals  it  from  us.  '  Sufficient  unto  the  day 
is  the  evil  thereof,'  is  a  good  precept  in  every  thing  pertaining  to 
human  action.  The  evil  I  would  not  anticipate  ;  I  would  rather 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  121 

strive  to  prevent  its  coming;  and  one  wajr,  in  my  judgment,  to 
prevent  it,  is,  while  here,  in  all  things  to  do  what  is  right  and 
proper  to  be  done  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Nothing  more,  and  nothing  less.  Our  safety,  as  well  as  the  pros 
perity  of  all  parts  of  the  country,  so  long  as  this  government 
lasts,  lies  mainly  in  a  strict  conformity  to  the  laws  of  its  exist 
ence.  Growth  is  one  of  these.  The  admission  of  new  States  is 
one  of  the  objects  expressly  provided  for.  How  are  they  to  come 
in?  With  just  such  constitutions  as  the  people  in  each  may 
please  to  make  for  themselves,  so  it  is  republican  in  form.  This 
is  the  ground  the  South  has  ever  stood  upon.  Let  us  not  abandon 
it  now.  It  is  founded  upon  a  principle  planted  in  the  compact  of 
Union  itself,  and  more  essential  to  us  than  all  others  besides. 
That  is,  the  equality  of  the  States,  and  the  reserved  rights  of  the 
people  of  the  respective  States. 

"  By  our  system,  each  State,  however  great  the  number,  has  the 
absolute  right  to  regulate  all  her  internal  affairs  as  she  pleases, 
subject  only  to  her  obligations  under  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  With  this  limitation,  the  people  of  Massachusetts 
have  the  perfect  right  to  do  as  they  please  upon  all  matters  re 
lating  to  their  internal  policy.  The  people  of  Ohio  have  the  right 
to  do  the  same ;  the  people  of  Georgia  the  same  ;  of  California 
the  same  ;  and  so  with  all  the  rest. 

"  Such  is  the  machinery  of  our  theory  of  self-government  by 
the  people.  This  is  the  great  novelty  of  our  peculiar  system, 
involving  a  principle  unknown  to  the  ancients,  an  idea  never 
dreamed  of  by  Aristotle  or  Plato.  The  union  of  several  distinct, 
independent  communities  upon  this  basis,  is  a  new  principle  in 
human  governments.  It  is  now  a  problem  in  experiment  for  the 
people  of  the  nineteenth  century  upon  this  continent  to  solve. 
As  I  behold  its  workings  in  the  past  and  at  the  present,  while  I 
am  not  sanguine,  yet  I  am  hopeful  of  its  successful  solution. 
The  most  joyous  feeling  of  my  heart  is  the  earnest  hope  that  it 
will,  for  the  future,  move  on  as  peacefully,  prosperously,  and  bril 
liantly,  as  it  has  in  the  past.  If  so,  then  we  shall  exhibit  a  moral 
and  political  spectacle  to  the  world  something  like  the  prophetic 
vision  of  Ezekiel,  when  he  saw  a  number  of  distinct  beings  or 


122  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

living  creatures,  each  with  a  separate  and  distinct  organism, 
having  the  functions  of  life  within  itself,  all  of  one  external  like 
ness,  and  all,  at  the  same  time,  mysteriously  connected  with  one 
common  animating  spirit  pervading  the  whole — so  that  when  the 
common  spirit  moved,  they  all  moved;  their  appearance  and 
their  work  being,  as  it  were,  a  wheel  in  the  middle  of  a  wheel. 
And  whithersoever  the  common  spirit  went,  thither  the  others 
went,  all  going  together ;  and  when  they  went,  he  heard  the  noise 
of  their  motion,  like  the  noise  of  great  waters,  as  the  voice  of  the 
Almighty. 

"  Should  our  experiment  succeed,  such  will  be  our  exhibition. 
A  machinery  of  government  so  intricate,  so  complicated,  with  so 
many  separate  and  distinct  parts,  so  many  independent  States, 
each  perfect  in  the  attributes  and  functions  of  sovereignty,  within 
its  own  jurisdiction — all,  nevertheless,  united  under  the  control 
of  a  common  directing  power  for  external  objects  and  purposes 
— may,  naturally  enough,  seem  novel,  strange,  and  inexplicable 
to  the  philosophers  and  crowned  heads  of  the  world. 

"  It  is  for  us,  and  those  who  shall  come  after  us,  to  determine 
whether  this  grand  experimental  problem  shall  be  worked  out ; 
not  by  quarrelling  amongst  ourselves  ;  not  by  doing  injustice  to 
any ;  not  by  keeping  out  any  particular  class  of  States  ;  but  by 
each  State  remaining  a  separate  and  distinct  political  organism 
within  itself — all  bound  together  for  general  objects,  under  a  com 
mon  Federal  head  ;  as  it  were,  a  wheel  within  a  wheel.  Then  the 
number  may  be  multiplied  without  limit ;  and  then,  indeed,  may 
the  nations  of  the  earth  look  on  in  wonder  at  our  career ;  and 
when  they  hear  the  noise  of  the  wheels  of  our  progress  in  achieve 
ment,  in  development,  in  expansion,  in  glory,  and  renown,  it  may 
well  appear  to  them  not  unlike  the  noise  of  great  waters ;  the 
very  voice  of  the  Almighty — '  Vox  populi!  Vox  Dei!'  'The 
voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God.'  [Great  applause  in  the 
galleries  and  on  the  floor.] 

"  The  SPEAKER.  If  the  applause  in  the  galleries  is  repeated,  the 
Chair  will  order  the  galleries  to  be  cleared. 

"  Many  MEMBERS.     It  was  upon  the  floor." 

From  all  the  compliments,  in  prose  and  verse;  that  rained  in 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  123 

upon  the  orator,  we  make  a  brief  extract  of  only  one.     It  is 
from  the  Washington  (D.  C.)  Star  : 

"  HON.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"By  Mrs.  M.  S.   Whitaker. 

"As  warring  winds  in  frozen  realms  contend. 
And  o'er  the  deep  their  dreary  murmurs  send, 
So  contest  rose,  and  faction  ruled  the  crowd 
With  empty  words  and  declamation  loud. 

"  Oh  !  who  shall  breast  the  storm,  who  guide  the  helm, 
While  raging  waters  threaten  to  o'erwhelm  ? 
Gray  hairs  are  there,  the  wrinkled  front  of  age, 
The  fresher  manhood  and  the  riper  sage. 

"  Behold !  one  cometh,  Oregon  for  thee, 
Whose  very  coming  bringeth  victory  ; 
Whose  words  will  add  a  star  to  those  we  boast, 
And  fix  our  flag  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

'As  great  in  action  as  in  council  wise, 
See  her  intrepid,  conquering  champion  rise ; 
The  South  his  birth-place,  honored  by  his  name ; 
The  admiring  world  his  theatre  of  fame. 

"  Pale  is  his  cheek,  but  silver-toned  his  voice, 
While  at  its  sound  the  tuneful  Nine  rejoice. 
All  soul !  all  fire  !  a  revelation  given, 
As  though  some  spirit  spoke  to  earth  from  heaven. 
#•  #  #  #•  *  * 

"And  shall  we  miss  thee  and  thy  councils  now  ? 
Like  Cincinnatus,  wouldst  thou  seek  the  plow  ? 
Rome  needs  thy  wisdom,  modest  tho'  thou  art, 
And  Freedom  keeps  thee  ever  near  her  heart. 

"  Thy  private  goodness,  registered  above, 
Wins  for  the  noble  man  as  noble  love ; 
Beneficent  patriot,  wear  thy  laurel  leaves 
'Till  reaped  by  angel  hands  shall  be  thy  sheaves. 

"  WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  12,  1859." 


124  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 


y. 

EETIEEMBNT  FEOM  CONGRESS. 

SPEECH  AT  AUGUSTA  (GEORGIA),  2D  OF  JULY,  1859 — VIEWS  ON 
THE  PROPER  RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  WHITE  AND  BLACK 
RACES  AT  THE  SOUTH — PRESIDENTIAL  CANVASS  OF  1860. 

IN  March,  1859,  at  the  close  of  that  Congress,  he  voluntarily 
retired  to  private  life. 

As  evidence  of  the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held  by  the 
public  men  with  whom  he  had  been  associated  at  Washington, 
we  state  that  on  the  occasion  of  his  retirement,  a  public  dinner 
was  tendered  to  him  by  senators  and  members  of  the  House 
without  distinction  of  party,  headed  by  the  President  of  the. 
Senate  and  Speaker  of  the  House.  The  compliment  of  such  a 
manifestation  of  regard  is,  we  believe,  without  a  precedent.* 

*  The  following  is  the  original  draft  of  his  reply,  which  we  find  among 
some  old  papers : 

"  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Id  March,  1859. 
"Hon.  JOHN  C.  BRECKINRIDGE,  JAMES  L.  ORR,  G.  E.  PDGH,  and  others : 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — Your  kind  note  tendering-  me  the  compliment  of  a  din 
ner,  on  the  occasion  of  my  retiring  from  Congress,  has  just  been  handed 
to  me.  For  this  very  distinguished  and  entirely  unexpected  mark  of  your 
personal  friendship,  without  reference  to  the  terms  in  which  you  have 
been  pleased  to  speak  of  my  public  service,  I  return  you  my  unfeigned 
thanks.  I  appreciate  this  testimonial  of  esteem  on  the  part  of  so  many 
senators  and  members  in  no  ordinary  degree — the  more  so  from  the  fact, 
that  it  comes  not  alone  from  those  with  whom  I  am  associated  politically. 
It  will  ever  be  cherished  in  that  retirement  to  which  you  allude,  as  one 
of  the  most  pleasant  reminiscences  of  my  life.  If  circumstances  per 
mitted,  I  need  not  assure  you,  it  would  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  comply 
with  your  request,  and  around  the  social  board  to  take  that  long  and  last 
farewell  which  so  soon  awaits  us. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  125 

On  Mr.  Stephens'  return  to  Georgia,  a  dinner  was  given  to 
him,  at  Augusta,  by  the  people  of  his  old  district.  This,  too, 
was  without  distinction  of  party.  His  "  farewell  speech,"  as  it 
is  called,  delivered  on  that  occasion  to  a  vast  crowd  of  ladies 
and  gentlemen  in  the  City  Hall  Park  of  Augusta,  July  2d, 
1859,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  in  this  book.  In  it  he  not 
only  reviews  the  whole  course  of  his  public  life,  but  spoke 
also  upon  some  of  the  gravest  questions  then  before  the  people. 
All  should  read  it. 

In  this  speech  he  gives  fully  and  clearly  his  views  on  the 
now  broken  relations  between  the  white  and  the  black  races  in 
the  South.  Slavery,  as  it  existed  in  the  Southern  States,  Mr. 
Stephens  ever  regarded  as  but  the  proper  status  in  society  of 
an  inferior  to  a  superior  race.  In  the  Texas  speech,  in  1845, 
he  said  : — 

"  I  am  no  defender  of  slavery  in  the  abstract — liberty  always 
had  charms  for  me,  and  I  would  prefer  to  see  all  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  Adam's  family  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  the 
rights  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  American  Independence, 
if  a  stern  decree  of  the  Almighty  did  not  in  some  cases  interfere 
and  prevent." 

This,  in  his  judgment,  was  the  case  where  the  European  and 
African  races  existed  together  in  the  proportion  they  did  in  the 
Southern  States.  He  did  not  regard  this  "peculiar  institu 
tion,"  as  it  was  called  in  the  South,  as  slavery  in  the  proper 
acceptation  of  that  term.  It  was  but  a  proper  and  legal  subor 
dination  of  the  inferior  to  the  superior  race.  This  subordina 
tion  was  the  natural  and  normal  condition  of  the  black  or 
African  race  toward  the  white.  These  views  were  fully  given 

"  But  business  engagements  previously  made  require  my  immediate 
departure  for  home  at  the  close  of  our  public  duties ;  this,  I  trust,  will  be 
a  sufficient  excuse  for  my  foregoing  that  pleasure. 

"  Please  accept  the  assurance  of  my  high  regards,  and  in  whatever  for 
tunes  betide  us,  my  best  wishes  attend  you  and  our  common  country. 
"  Yours,  most  sincerely,        ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 


126  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

in  many  speeches  made  by  him  during  his  whole  public  course. 
But  in  none,  perhaps,  more  clearly  and  concisely  than  in  this 
speech  made  upon  retirement  from  Congress.  We  give  them 
in  full  as  therein  expressed,  that  he  may  speak  for  himself  and 
not  we  for  him : 

"African  slavery  with  us  rests  upon  principles  that  can  never 
be  successfully  assailed  by  reason  or  argument.  It  has  grown 
stronger  by  discussion,  and  will  still  grow  stronger  as  discussion 
proceeds  and  as  time  rolls  on.  Thirty  years  ago,  Virginia  was 
on  the  verge  of  abolition.  Now,  no  such  sentiment  is  to  be 
found  there.  Twenty  years  ago,  Wilberforce's  theory  was  car 
ried  out  by  emancipation  in  the  British  West  Indies.  That 
experiment  has  most  signally  failed  ;  thaft  error  in  policy  is  now 
attempted  to  be  remedied  by  Coolies,  instead  of  Africans,  under 
the  title  of  apprentices,  instead  of  slaves.  This  is  but  verifying 
the  proverb,  that  '  one  false  step  leads  to  another.'  Carlyle,  the 
greatest  thinker  of  England,  has  repudiated  the  folly  of  aboli 
tionism  ;  and  the  London  Times  followed  not  far  behind  him. 
The  world  is  growing  wiser,  and  upon  no  subject  more  rapidly 
than  that  of  the  proper  status  of  the  negro.  In  my  judgment, 
there  arc  more  thinking  men  at  the  North  now  who  look  upon 
our  system  of  slavery  as  right — socially,  morally,  and  politically 
— than  there  were  even  at  the  South  thirty  years  ago.  The 
leading  public  men  of  the  South,  in  our  early  history,  were 
almost  all  against  it.  Jefferson  was  against  it ;  Madison  was 
against  it ;  nearly  all  of  them  were  against  it.  This  I  freely 
admit,  when  the  authority  of  their  names  is  cited.  It  was  a 
question  which  they  did  not,  and  perhaps  could  not,  thoroughly 
understand  at  that  time.  It  was  then  a  new  question  in  the  con 
struction  of  constitutional  government.  It  is  still  a  problem  in 
process  of  solution.  They  met  the  paramount  questions  of  their 
day  as  statesmen ;  so  should  the  men  of  this  day  meet  those 
before  them.  New  truths  are  always  slow  in  development.  This 
is  the  case  in  all  the  physical  sciences.  It  was  so  with  the  Coper- 
nican  system  in  astronomy;  so  with  the  application  of  steam  in 
mechanics  ;  so  with  the  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  electricity,  and 
the  means  of  controlling  it  for  great  uses  and  purposes ;  this  is 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  127 

also  the  case  with  new  truths  in  governments,  and  even  more  GO  ; 
for  legislators  and  rulers  are  not  generally  the  thinkers  of  any 
country.  Hence,  important  facts  within  their  appropriate  sphere 
often  lie  much  longer  unobserved,  without  the  legitimate  induc 
tions  and  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  them.  The  world  had 
moved  on  for  centuries  ;  States,  Kingdoms,  and  Empires  had 
risen,  fallen,  and  passed  away  before  legislators  were  even  con 
scious  of  the  great  facts  and  truths  brought  to  light  by  Adam 
Smith,  touching  the  laws  of  trade  and  the  real  source  of  the  wealth 
of  nations.  Even  when  first  announced,  they  were  slow  in  im 
pressing  the  minds  of  those  who  controlled  the  action  of  govern 
ments.  Now  they  are  recognized  and  adopted  as  maxims  by  the 
wise  and  intelligent  in  all  civilized  countries.  So  it  has  been, 
and  is,  with  the  great  fact  that  in  the  framework  of  human  society 
the  materials  for  its  structure  should  be  selected  and  arranged  in 
the  order  of  nature.  Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  the  great 
est  philosophers  of  antiquity,  directed  their  minds  to  the  systems 
of  government,  and  the  proper  constitution  of  a  State.  The  re 
publican  form  was  the  ideal  model  of  each.  They  all  saw  the 
necessity  of  some  sort  of  gradation  in  the  elements  of  its  compo 
sition  ;  but  their  systems  failed,  because  they  violated  nature  in 
making  the  subordinate  class  of  the  same  race.  Subordination 
is  the  normal  condition  of  the  negro.  This  great  truth,  that  such 
was  the  normal  condition  of  any  race,  was  not  recognized  in  their 
theories  ;  and  hence  their  machinery,  in  practice,  could  not  work. 
In  this  connection,  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  do  not  agree  with 
some  as  to  the  manner  of  meeting  our  assailants  on  this  subject. 
Many  seem  to  be  not  only  astonished,  but  offended,  at  the  '  higher 
law'  doctrine  of  the  Senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward).  I, 
too,  believe  in  the  'higher  law,'  the  law  of  the  Creator,  as  mani 
fested  in  his  words  and  his  revelations.  Upon  this  our  cause 
eminently  rests.  I  claim  nothing  barely  upon  the  ground  that 
'thus  it  is  nominated  in  the  bond.'  I  recognize  to  the  fullest 
extent  the  doctrine  that  all  human  laws  and  constitutions  must 
be  founded  upon  the  Divine  law.  And  if  there  is  any  right  secured, 
or  any  obligation  imposed,  in  our  constitution  inconsistent  with 
this  law,  underlying  and  overruling  all  others,  such  right  and 


128  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

such  obligation  must  be  yielded.     I  would  not  swear  to  support 
any  constitution  inconsistent  with  this  '  higher  law.' 

"Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  ;  this  question  has  to  be  grasped 
and  comprehended  in  all  its  vast  dimensions ;  on  it  we  need  not 
orators  so  much  as  thinkers,  nor  declaimers  so  much  as  reason- 
ers.  We  must  stand  on  the  '  higher  law'  as  well  as  upon  the 
constitution.  The  latter  must  be  subordinate  to  the  former. 
But  as  I  read  the  inscriptions  upon  the  canvas  of  the  universe 
about  us,  and  around  us,  and  over  us,  as  well  as  the  teachings  of 
inspiration,  '  order  is  nature's  first  law ;'  with  it,  come  gradation 
and  subordination.  This  principle  extends  from  the  Throne  of 
the  Creator  to  the  utmost  limits  of  his  works.  We  see  it  in  the 
heavens  above,  in  the  greater  and  lesser  lights,  in  the  stars  that 
differ  from  each  other  in  magnitude  and  lustre  ;  we  see  it  in  the 
earth  below,  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  ranging 
from  stateliest  trees  of  the  forests  to  the  rudest  mosses  and 
ferns ;  from  the  magnolia  grandiflora  gioriosa,  the  rose  and  the 
japonica,  down  to  the  most  uncouth  flower  we  tread  under  foot; 
from  the  hugest  monster  of  life  in  the  air,  on  the  land,  or  in  the 
ocean,  to  the  smallest  animalcule  to  be  found  in  them  all,  we  see 
similar  distinctions  and  gradation  in  the  races  of  men,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest  type.  These  are  mysteries  in  creation 
which  are  not  for  us  to  explain.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  they 
work  out  a  grand  harmony  through  the  whole;  and  that  in  our 
S3rstein  of  government,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  best  in  the 
world,  we  do  but  conform  to  those  immutable  principles  of 
nature.  Who>  then,  is  warring  against  the  'higher  law;'  we  who 
conform  to  it,  or  those  who  are  striving  to  reverse  the  decrees  of 
the  Almighty  ?  In  politics  and  morals,  as  in  mechanics,  it  is 
impossible  to  war  successfully  against  principle.  The  principle 
will  ultimately  prevail.  The  wickedest  of  all  follies,  and  the 
absurdest  of  all  crusades,  are  those  which  attempt  to  make 
things  equal  which  God,  in  his  wisdom,  has  made  unequal.  It 
is  a  struggle  against  a  principle  which  can  never  succeed,  where 
reason  has  sway,  until  'the  leopard  can  change  his  spots,  and 
the  Ethiopian  his  skin.'  The  world,  by  wise  men,  is  to  be  taken 
as  they  find  it ;  and  it  is  the  business  of  statesmen  so  to  con- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  129 

struct  the  materials  of  society  as  best  to  promote  the  good  of 
all.  This  can  never  be  done  by  violating  any  principle  of  nature. 
If  our  system  is  not  the  best,  or  cannot  be  made  the  best  for 
both  races,  it  is  wrong.  I  utterly  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  the 
greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number.  One  hundred  men  have 
no  right  to  have  happiness  at  the  expense  of  ninety-nine,  or  a 
less  number.  If  slavery,  as  it  exists  with  us,  is  not  the  best  for 
the  African,  constituted  and  made  as  he  is ;  if  it  does  not  best 
promote  his  welfare  and  happiness,  socially,  morally,  and  politi 
cally,  as  well  as.  that  of  his  master,  it  ought  to  be  abolished. 
But  if  it  does  this,  then  we  stand  upon  a  rock  as  firm  and 
impregnable  as  truth." 

This  great  truth,  according  to  his  convictions,  upon  which 
the  institution  rested  was  justified  by  him,  in  another  speech, 
made  some  years  afterward  at  Savannah,  which  has  obtained 
much  celebrity,  and  was  then  styled  by  him  the  "  Corner  Stone." 
That  "  corner  stone"  speech,  it  is  proper  to  state,  was  extempora 
neous.  It  was  very  imperfectly  reported,  and  only  purported 
to  give  the  substance  of  what  was  said  on  the  several  points 
treated  of  in  the  address.  In  its  statistical  references  were 
many  errors,  some  of  which  we  may  not  be  able  to  perfectly 
correct  at  this  time.  But  as  that  speech  has  been  often  referred 
to,  as  embodying  some  of  his  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  colored 
race,  and  more  than  once  attacked,  we  give  it  place  in  this  col 
lection.  It  may  be  found  much  easier  to  object  to  its  views, 
than  to  reply  to  them. 

We  allude  to  these  matters  with  no  view  to  revive  a  discus 
sion  of  these  questions,  but  simply  to  present  Mr.  Stephens' 
views  upon  them  as  they  were  when  the  questions  were  open. 
However  wrong  or  right,  he  may  have  been  in  them,  no  one 
can  doubt  his  perfect  sincerity  and  conscientiousness  in  enter 
taining  them.  In  benevolence,  and  kindly  feeling  toward  the 
human  family — all  classes  and  grades  of  society — Mr.  Stephens 
is  signally  distinguished.  He  is,  in  truth  and  in  deed,  a  phil 
anthropist,  in  the  broadest  sense  of  that  word,  if  one  ever  ex 
isted  on  this  earth.  The  system  of  the  subordination  of  the 
9 


130  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

black  to  the  white  race,  as  it  existed,  he  did  not  think  perfect. 
But  he  looked  for  improvement,  and  strove  for  improvements 
in  it.  He  was  opposed  to  that  feature  which  denied  education 
to  the  black  race,  as  well  as  that  which  failed  to  recognize  the 
marriage  relation.  These  and  other  improvements  of  the  sys 
tem,  he  looked  to.  There  was  no  time,  however,  during  the 
war,  that  he  would  not  have  been  willing  to  give  up  the  insti 
tution  for  the  acknowledgment  of  his  cherished  principle  of 
separate  State  sovereignty.  This  he  has  often  been  heard  to 
say ;  and  how  he  now  accepts  this  fundamental  change  in  the 
social  fabric  of  Southern  society,  will  be  seen  in  his  speech  on 
the  22d  February,  1866,  hereafter  referred  to.  In  this  connec 
tion,  we  may  be  excused  for  quoting  from  it  here,  as  follows. 
He  says : 

"  But  with  this  change  comes  a  new  order  of  things.  One  of 
the  results  of  the  war  is  a  total  change  in  our  whole  internal 
policy.  Our  former  social  fabric  has  been  entirely  subverted. 
Like  those  convulsions  in  nature  which  break  up  old  incrusta 
tions,  the  war  has  wrought  a  new  epoch  in  our  political  existence. 
Old  things  have  passed  away,  and  all  things  among  us  in  this 
respect  are  new.  The  relation  heretofore,  under  our  old  sj^stem, 
existing  between  the  African  and  European  races,  no  longer 
exists.  Slavery,  as  it  was  called,  or  the  status  of  the  black  race, 
their  subordination  to  the  white,  upon  which  all  our  institutions 
rested,  is  abolished  forever,  not  only  in  Georgia,  but  throughout 
the  limits  of  the  United  States.  This  change  should  be  received 
and  accepted  as  an  irrevocable  fact.  It  is  a  bootless  question 
now  to  discuss,  whether  the  new  system  is  better  for  both  races 
than  the  old  one  was  or  not.  That  may  be  proper  matter  for  the 
philosophic  and  philanthropic  historian,  at  some  future  time,  to 
inquire  into,  after  the  new  system  shall  have  been  fully  and  fairly 
tried. 

"  All  changes  of  systems  or  proposed  reforms  are  but  experi 
ments  and  problems  to  be  solved.  Our  system  of  self-govern 
ment  was  an  experiment  at  first.  Perhaps  as  a  problem  it  is  not 
jet  solved.  Our  present  duty  on  this  subject  is  not  with  the  past 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  131 

or  the  future.  It  is  with  the  present.  The  wisest  and  the  best 
often  err  in  their  judgment  as  to  the  probable  workings  of  any 
new  system.  Let  us,  therefore,  give  this  one  a  fair  and  just  trial, 
without  prejudice,  and  with  that  earnestness  of  purpose  which 
always  looks  hopefully  to  success.  It  is  an  ethnological  problem, 
on  the  solution  of  which  depends,  no.t  only  the  best  interests  of 
both  races,  but  it  may  be,  the  existence  of  one  or  the  other,  if  not 
both. 

"  This  duty  of  giving  this  new  system  a  fair  and  just  trial, 
will  require  of  you,  as  legislators  of  the  land,  great  changes  in 
our  former  laws  in  regard  to  this  large  class  of  population.  Wise 
and  hurr.ane  provisions  should  be  made  for  them.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  go  into  detail.  Suffice  it  to  say  on  this  occasion,  that  ample 
and  full  protection  should  be  secured  to  them,  so  that  they  may 
stand  equal  before  the  law,  in  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of 
all  rights  of  person,  libert}r,  and  property.  Many  considerations 
claim  this  at  your  hands.  Among  these  may  be  stated  their 
fidelity  in  times  past.  They  cultivated  your  fields ;  ministered 
to  your  personal  wants  and  comforts ;  nursed  and  reared  your 
children  ;  and  even  in  the  hour  of  danger  and  peril,  they  were,  in 
the  main,  true  to  you  and  yours.  To  them  we  owe  a  debt  of 
gratitude,  as  well  as  acts  of  kindness.  This  should  also  be  don-e 
because  they  are  poor,  untutored,  uninformed ;  many  of  them 
helpless,  liable  to  be  imposed  upon,  and  need  it.  Legislation 
should  ever  look  to  the  protection  of  the  weak  against  the  strong. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  equality  of  races,  or  their  natural 
capacity  to  become  equal,  no  one  can  doubt  that,  at  this  time, 
this  race  among  us  is  not  equal  to  the  Caucasian.  This  inequality 
does  not  lessen  the  moral  obligations  on  the  part  of  the  superior 
to  the  inferior,  it  rather  increases  them.  From  him  who  has 
much,  more  is  required  than  from  him  who  has  little.  The  pres 
ent  generation  of  them,  it  is  true,  is  far  above  their  savage  pro 
genitors,  who  were  at  first  introduced  into  this  country ;  in  general 
intelligence,  virtue,  and  moral  culture.  This  shows  capacity  for 
improvement.  But  in  all  the  higher  characteristics  of  mental 
development,  they  are  still  very  far  below  the  European  type. 
What  further  advancement  they  may  make,  or  to  what  standard 


132  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

they  may  attain,  under  a  different  system  of  laws  every  way  suit 
able  and  wisely  applicable  to  their  changed  condition,  time  alone 
can  disclose.  I  speak  of  them  as  we  now  know  them  to  be, 
having  no  longer  the  protection  of  a  master,  or  legal  guardian ; 
they  now  need  all  the  protection  which  the  shield  of  the  law  can 
give. 

"  But  above  all,  this  protection  should  be  secured  because  it  is 
right  and  just  that  it  should  be,  upon  general  principles.  All 
governments  in  their  organic  structure,  as  well  as  in  their 
administration,  should  have  this  leading  object  in  view :  the  good 
of  the  governed.  Protection  and  security  to  all  under  its  juris 
diction,  should  be  the  chief  end  of  every  government.  It  is  a 
melancholy  truth  that  while  this  should  be  the  chief  end  of  all 
governments,  most  of  them  are  used  only  as  instruments  of  power, 
for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  few,  at  the  expense  of,  and  by  the 
oppression  of,  the  many.  Such  are  not  our  ideas  of  government, 
never  have  been,  and  never  should  be.  Governments,  according 
to  our  ideas,  should  look  to  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not  a  part 
only.  "  The  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,"  is  a  favorite 
dogma  with  some.  Some  so  defended  our  old  system.  But  you 
know  this  was  never  my  doctrine.  The  greatest  good  to  all,  with 
out  detriment  or  injury  to  any,  is  the  true  rule.  Those  govern 
ments  are  only  founded  upon  correct  principles  of  reason  and 
justice,  which  look  to  the  greatest  attainable  advancement,  im 
provement,  and  progress,  physically,  intellectually,  and  morally, 
of  all  classes  and  conditions  within  their  rightful  jurisdiction. 
If  our  old  system  was  not  the  best,  or  could  not  have  been  made 
the  best,  for  both  races,  in  this  respect  and  upon  this  basis,  it 
ought  to  have  been  abolished.  This  was  my  view  of  that  system 
while  it  lasted,  and  I  repeat  it  now  that  it  is  no  more.  In  legisla 
tion,  therefore,  under  the  new  system,  you  should  look  to  the 
best  interest  of  all  classes ;  their  protection,  security,  advance 
ment,  and  improvement,  physically,  intellectually,  and  morally. 
All  obstacles,  if  there  be  any,  should  be  removed,  which  can  possib^ 
hinder  or  retard  the  improvement  of  the  blacks  to  the  extent  of 
their  capacity.  All  proper  aid  should  be  given  to  their  own 
efforts.  Channels  of  education  should  be  opened  up  to  them. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  133 

Schools,  and  the  usual  means  of  moral  and  intellectual  training, 
should  be  encouraged  amongst  them.  This  is  the  dictate,  not 
only  of  what  is  right  and  proper,  and  just  in  itself,  but  it  is  also 
the  promptings  of  the  highest  considerations  of  interest.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  a  greater  evil  or  curse,  that  could  befall  our 
country,  stricken  and  distressed  as  it  now  is,  than  for  so  large  a 
portion  of  its  population  as  this  class  will  quite  probably  consti 
tute  amongst  us  hereafter,  to  be  reared  in  ignorance,  depravity, 
and  vice.  In  view  of  such  a  state  of  things,  well  might  the  pru 
dent,  even  now,  look  to  its  abandonment.  Let  us  not,  however, 
indulge  in  such  thoughts  of  the  future.  Nor  let  us,  without  an 
effort,  say  the  system  can  not  be  worked.  Let  us  not,  standing 
still,  hesitatingly  ask,  '  Can  there  any  good  thing  come  out  of 
Nazareth  ?'  but  let  us  rather  say,  as  Gamaliel  did,  '  If  this  counsel 
or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  naught,  but  if  it  be  of  God 
ye  cannot  overthrow  it,  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight 
against  God.'  The  most  vexed  questions  of  the  age  are  social  pro 
blems.  These  we  have  heretofore  had  but  little  to  do  with ;  we 
were  relieved  from  them  by  our  peculiar  institution.  Emancipa 
tion  of  the  blacks,  with  its  consequences,  was  ever  considered  by 
me  with  much  more  interest  as  a  social  question,  one  relating  to 
the  proper  status  of  the  different  elements  of  society,  and  their 
relations  toward  each  other,  looking  to  the  best  interest  of  all, 
than  in  any  other  light.  The  pecuniary  aspect  of  it,  the  considera 
tions  of  labor  and  capital,  in  a  politico-economic  view,  sunk  into 
insignificance,  in  comparison  with  this.  This  problem,  as  one  of 
the  results  of  the  war,  is  now  upon  us,  presenting  one  of  the  most 
perplexing  questions  of  the  sort  that  any  people  ever  had  to  deal 
with.  Let  us  resolve  to  do  the  best  we  can  with  it,  from  all  the 
lights  we  have,  or  can  get  from  any  quarter.  With  this  view,  and 
in  this  connection,  I  take  the  liberty  of  quoting  for  your  considera 
tion,  some  remarks  even  from  the  REV.  HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 
I  met  with  them  some  months  ago,  while  pondering  on  this  subject, 
and  was  as  much  struck  as  surprised,  with  the  drift  of  their  philoso 
phy,  coming  from  the  source  they  did.  I  give  them  as  I  find  them 
in  the  New  York  Times,  where  they  were  reported.  You  may  be 
as  much  surprised  a.t  hearing  such  ideas  from  Mr.  Beecher,  as  I 


134:  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

was.  But  however  much  we  may  differ  from  him  on  many  ques 
tions,  and  on  many  questions  connected  with  this  subject,  yet  all 
must  admit  him  to  rank  amongst  the  master  spirits  of  the  age. 
And  no  one  perhaps  has  contributed  more  by  the  power  of  his 
pen  and  voice  in  bringing  about  the  present  state  of  things,  than 
he  has.  Yet,  nevertheless,  I  commend  to  your  serious  considera 
tion,  as  pertinent  to  my  present  object,  what  he  was  reported  to 
have  said,  as  follows  : 

" '  In  our  land  and  time  facts  and  questions  are  pressed  upon  us,  which 
demand  Christian  settlement.  Settlement  on  this  ground  and  doctrine. 
We  cannot  escape  the  responsibility.  Being  strong  and  powerful,  \ve 
must  nurse,  and  help,  and  educate,  and  foster,  the  weak,  and  poor,  and 
ignorant.  For  my  own  part,  I  do  not  see  how  we  shall  escape  the  most 
terrible  conflict  of  classes,  by-and-by,  unless  we  are  educated  into  this 
doctrine  of  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  superior  to  the  inferior.  We  are  told 
by  zealous  and  fanatical  individuals,  that  all  men  are  equal.  We  know 
better.  They  are  not  equal.  A  common  brotherhood  teaches  no  such 
absurdity.  A  theory  of  universal,  physical  likeness,  is  no  more  absurd 
than  this.  Now,  as  in  all  times,  the  strong  go  to  the  top,  the  weak  go  to 
the  bottom.  It's  natural,  right,  and  can't  be  helped.  All  branches  are 
not  at  the  top  of  the  tree,  but  the  top  does  not  despise  the  lower ;  nor  do 
they  all  despise  the  limb  or  the  parent  trunk ;  and  so  with  the  body  poli 
tic  there  must  be  classes.  Some  must  be  at  the  top  and  some  must  be  at 
the  bottom.  It  is  difficult  to  foresee  and  estimate  the  development  of  the 
power  of  classes  in  America.  They  are  simply  inevitable.  They  are 
here  now,  and  will  be  more.  If  they  are  friendly,  living  at  peace,  loving 
and  respecting  and  helping  one  another,  all  will  be  well.  But  if  they  are 
selfish,  unchristian  ;  if  the  old  heathen  feeling  is  to  reign,  each  extracting 
all  he  can  from  his  neighbor,  and  caring  nothing  for  him,  society  will  be 
lined  by  classes  as  by  seams — like  batteries,  each  firing  broadside  after 
broadside,  the  one  upon  the  other.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  law  of  love 
prevails,  there  will  be  no  ill-will,  no  envy,  no  disturbance.  Does  a  child 
hate  his  father  because  he  is  chief,  because  he  is  strong  and  wise  ?  On 
the  contrary,  he  grows  with  his  father's  growth,  and  strengthens  with  his 
strength.  And  if  in  society  there  should  be  fifty  grades  or  classes,  all 
helping  each  other,  there  will  be  no  trouble,  but  perfect  satisfaction  and 
content.  This  Christian  doctrine,  carried  into  practice,  will  easily  settle 
the  most  troublesome  of  all  home  present  questions.' 

"  What  he  here  said  of  the  state  of  things  where  he  spoke  in 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  135 

the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  fearful  antagonism  of  classes 
there,  is  much  more  applicable  to  us.  Here,  it  is  true,  only  two 
great  classes  exist,  or  are  likely  to  exist ;  but  these  are  deeply 
marked  by  distinction  bearing  the  impress  of  nature.  The  one 
is  now,  beyond  all  question,  greatly  superior  to  the  other.  These 
classes  are  as  distinct  as  races  of  men  can  be.  The  one  is  of  the 
highest  type  of  humanity,  the  other  of  the  lowest.  All  that  he 
says  of  the  duty  of  the  superior,  to  protect,  to  aid,  to  encourage, 
and  to  help  the  inferior,  I  fully  and  cordially  endorse  and  com 
mend  to  3"ou  as  quite  applicable  to  us  and  our  situation,  as  it  was 
to  his  auditors.  Whether  the  doctrine,  if  carried  out  and  prac 
tised,  will  settle  all  these  most  troublesome  home  questions  with 
us  as  easily  as  he  seemed  to  think  it  would  like  home  questions 
with  those  whom  he  was  addressing,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say. 
I  have  no  hesitancy,  however,  in  saying  that  the  general  princi 
ples  announced  by  him  are  good.  Let  them  be  adopted  by  us  as 
far  as  practicable.  No  harm  can  come  from  it,  much  good  may. 
Whether  the  great  barrier  of  races  which  the  Creator  has  placed 
between  this,  our  inferior  class  and  ourselves,  shall  prevent  a 
success  of  the  experiment  now  on  trial,  of  a  peaceful,  happy  and 
prosperous  community,  composed  of  such  elements  and  sustain 
ing  present  relations  toward  each  other,  or  even  a  further 
elevation  on  the  part  of  the  inferior,  if  they  prove  themselves  fit 
for  it,  let  the  future,  under  the  dispensations  of  Providence, 
decide.  We  have  to  deal  with  the  present.  Let  us  do  our  duty 
now,  leaving*  results  and  ultimate  consequences  to  that 

"  '  Divinity  which  shapes  our  ends, 
Eough  hew  them  how  we  will.' 

"  In  all  things  on  this  subject,  as  in  all  others,  let  our  guide  be 
the  admirable  motto  of  our  State.  Let  our  counsels  be  governed 
by  wisdom,  our  measures  by  moderation,  and  our  principles  by 
justice." 

On  that  occasion  before  spoken  of,  to  wit:  his  retirement 
from  Congress,  a  magnificent  dinner,  free  to  the  whole  public, 
was  served  up  in  the  largest  railroad  depot  in  the  city.  The 


136  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

invitation  asking  him  to  accept  it,  had  been  signed  by  two  or 
three  hundred  prominent  citizens  of  Augusta,  and  vicinity, 
embracing  all  shades  of  opinion. 

Chance  enables  us  to  present  a  few  of  the  letters  of  the  dis 
tinguished  men  who  were  invited  to  the  dinner,  but  could  not 
attend.  They  show  the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held  by 
his  compeers. 

"  FROM  GOVERNOR    ELLIS,  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

EXECUTIVE  OFFICE,  RALEIGH,  June  26th,  1859. 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — Your  favor  of  the  16th  instant,  inviting  me  to  be  present 
at  a  complimentary  dinner  to  the  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens,  at  Augusta,  on 
the  2d  day  of  July  next,  is  at  hand,  for  which  please  accept,  my  thanks. 

"  I  regret  exceedingly  that  official  business  will  prevent  my  being  with 
you  at  the  time  designated.  This  regret  arises  from  the  fact  that  there 
is  no  man  in  this  country  whom  I  would  more  delight  to  honor  than  your 
distinguished  guest.  I  regard  him  as  not  only  one  of  the  ablest,  but  one  of 
the  purest  and  most  reliable  statesmen  in  the  Union ;  and  in  this  feeling,  I 
am  happy  to  say,  the  people  of  North  Carolina  participate  without  distinc 
tion  of  party.  As  a  representative  from  the  State  of  Georgia,  Mr.  Ste 
phens  has  shown  himself  capable  of  filling  the  highest  position  under  the 
government ;  and  it  is  most  natural  that  his  countrymen  should  have 
their  attention  turned  toward  him  in  connection  with  such  positions. 
Though  the  country  has  lost  the  services  of  Mr.  Stephens  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  day  is  not  distant  when  he 
will  be  called  upon  to  occupy  a  more  extended  field  of  labor,  and  of  use 
fulness  to  the  public. 

"  Hoping  that  you  will  have  an  agreeable  social  gathering  on  the  2d 
proximo,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant. 

"JoHN  W.  ELLIS." 

"  FROM  HON.  E.  A.  NISBET,    Georgia  Supreme  Court. 

"  MACON,  GA.,  June  24tfi,  1859. 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  polite  note  of  the  16th  instant, 
inviting  me  to  attend  a  dinner  to  be  given  to  the  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens, 
on  the  second  day  of  next  month,  as  a  testimonial  of  his  distinguished 
services  while  a  member  of  Congress.  It  would  gratify  me  exceedingly 
to  be  in  attendance  on  that  occasion,  mainly,  that  I  might,  by  my  presence, 
show  my  own  appreciation  of  the  services  of  that  distinguished  gentleman 
to  the  country.  I  shall  not  be  able  to  attend.  I  have  no  doubt  you  will 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  137 

agree  with  me  that  statesmanship  of  the  highest  order,  with  very  few  ex 
ceptions,  is  not  now  to  be  found  in  the  national  legislature  ;  and  that,  at 
no  time  in  the  past  of  our  history,  has  it  been  more  needed  than  at  the 
present  moment.  What  the  country  wants,  more,  perhaps,  than  any  thing 
else,  is  calm,  conservative,  wise  men  in  Congress  ;  with  reputations  so 
commanding  as  to  guide  public  opinion.  We  have  party  leaders  in  abun 
dance;  but  in  the  House  of  Representatives  not  one  who  may  be  justly 
called  a  national  leader.  It  is  because  these  things  are  so,  that  I  do  most 
sincerely  regret  Mr.  Stephens'  retirement.  He  had  attained  to  the  de 
sired  grade  of  statesmanship,  and  enjoyed  the  requisite  nationalism  of 
reputation.  In  simple  truth,  his  retirement  is  a  public  calamity.  The 
House  of  Representatives  was  the  field  of  his  triumphs,  and  would  be  the 
sphere  of  his  greatest  usefulness ;  for,  to  my  mind,  there  is  to  be  fought 
yet  the  great  battles  of  the  constitution.  Real  power  is  more  difficult  of 
attainment  there  than  on  higher  levels.  It  is  the  House  of  the  people, 
and  there  they  ought  to  have  true  exponents  of  their  virtue  and  intelli 
gence.  Of  course,  I  will  not  be  understood  as  disparaging  his  fitness  for 
any  other  position  in  the  public  service.  If,  however,  his  purpose  is  set 
tled  to  become  a  private  citizen,  he  will  carry  with  him  to  the  shades  of 
his  home,  the  gratitude  and  respect  of  numerous  friends  and  admirers  in 
every  part  of  the  Union.  Respectfully,  etc.,  etc., 

"B.    A.    NlSBET." 

t 
"  FROM  HON.  HOWELL  COBB,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

"WASHINGTON  CITY,  June  28th,  1859. 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — I  regret  to  say  that  my  public  engagements  will  deprive 
me  of  the  pleasure  of  attending  the  proposed  dinner  to  your  distinguished 
representative,  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens.  It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to 
serve  in  Congress,  as  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Stephens,  for  a  period  of  ten 
years.  During  that  time  the  most  important  questions  of  public  policy 
have  been  discussed  and  settled.  In  all  of  them  your  late  representa 
tive  took  an  active  and  influential  part — upon  most  of  them  we 
agreed,  upon  some  we  differed ;  but  in  all  of  them  his  course  was  marked 
with  ability,  patriotism,  and  devotion  to  his  convictions  of  right  and  jus 
tice.  Few  men  have  retired  from  our  national  legislature  with  a  higher 
reputation  than  Mr.  Stephens.  By  a  faithful  and  energetic  discharge  of 
duty,  he  won  for  himself  the  personal  confidence  of  his  immediate  con 
stituency  to  an  extent  rarely,  if  ever,  exceeded ;  whilst  his  bold  and  elo 
quent  advocacy  of  the  principles  and  measures  he  defended,  commanded 
the  respect  and  admiration  of  all  with  whom  he  was  associated. 

"  Such  a  representative  is  worthy  of  the  testimonial  you  have  proposed ; 


138  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPH/ENS. 

and  I  can  only  repeat  tb  3  regret  I  feel  in  not  being  able  to  participate, 
personally,  in  doing  honor  to  one  to  whom  honor  is  due. 
"  I  am  respectfully  yours,  etc., 

"HOWELL    COBB." 

"FROM  HON.  H.  Y.  JOHNSON,  Ex-Governor  of  Georgia. 

11  SPIERS  TURN  OUT,  JEFFERSON  Co.,  GA.,  June  29ta,  1859. 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — I  duly  received  your  note  of  the  16th  instant,  by  which 
you  honor  me  with  i  n  invitation  '  to  attend  a  dinner,  to  be  given  on  the 
2d  day  of  July,  to  the  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens,  by  a  number  of  his  friends 
and  former  constituents,  as  a  testimonial  of  their  appreciation  of  his  dis 
tinguished  services  while  a  member  of  Congress.' 

"  I  sincerely  regret  that  I  cannot  accept  your  invitation.  As  one  of  his 
'  former  constituents,'  it  would  afford  me  unfeigned  pleasure  to  attest  my 
'  appreciation  of  his  distinguished  public  services,'  by  mingling  personally 
in  the  convivialities  of  the  occasion. 

"  Few  men,  in  the  history  of  our  country,  have  achieved  a  career  at  once 
so  successful  and  so  brilliant  as  that  which  Mr.  Stephens  now  volun 
tarily  closes.  Not  one  ever  retired  from  public  life  with  more  dignity. 
His  fame  is  the  well-earned  reward  of  patriotic  toil,  exalted  talents,  and 
uncommon  eloquence ;  his  chosen  retreat  to  private  life  is  the  triumph 
of  personal  virtue  over  the  love  of  place  and  office,  which  is  characteristic 
of  noble  minds.  Still  we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  his  withdrawal 
from  Congrels  is  a  public  loss,  and  creates  a  vacuum  difficult  to  be  filled. 
His  tact  as  a  parliamentarian,  his  familiarity  with  public  affairs,  his  skill 
as  a  debater,  his  boldness  and  zeal,  all  combine  to  invest  him  with  power 
for  usefulness  rarely  possessed  by  statesmen.  I  am  sure  I  express  the 
almost  universal  sentiment  when  I  say,  I  sincerely  regret  his  determina 
tion  to  abandon  his  field  of  fame  and  service. 

"  Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant  and  fellow-citizen, 

"HERSCHEL  Y.  JOHNSON." 

Mr.  J.  B.  Thorpe  thus  writes  of  Mr.  Stephens  at  the  time  of 
this  retirement  from  public  life,  in  1859,  which  retirement 
was  expacted  and  intended  to  be  final : 

"  The  time  was  when  a  visit  to  Washington  city  presented  a 
field  of  intellectual  interest ;  there  were  men  in  our  National 
councils  alike  remarkable  for  mental  power  and  physical  peculi 
arity.  In  the  Senate  were  Clay,  Webster,  and  Calhoun ;  in  the 
House,  Rand  olph,  Burgess,  Crockett,  and  other  giants  in  their 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  139 

way,  who,  once  seen,  afforded  life-long  reminiscences.  At  present, 
our  Congressmen  have,  with  very  few  exceptions,  become  com 
monplace,  and  in  no  way  distinguishable  from  the  vulgar  multi 
tude  which  throng  the  drinking  saloons  and  naked  streets  of  our 
nation's  Capital.  Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  one  of  the  oldest 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  is  the  most  prominent 
man,  intellectually,  and  the  most  remarkable  man,  physically,  of 
the  few  remaining  celebrities.  From  his  infancy  he  has  been 
an  invalid,  and  the  fearful  effect  of  suffering  is  shown  in  his 
singularly  delicate  frame,  in  his  pale,  attenuated  face,  and  in  his 
feeble  walk.  A  first  introduction  to  Mr.  Stephens  fairly  startles 
you,  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  realize  that  there  stands  be 
fore  you  a  man  deservedly  famous  for  his  triumphs,  alike  at  the 
bar  and  the  forum ;  that  one  so  frail  could,  by  his  mental  ability, 
give  character  to  the  legislation  of  a  great  people ;  but  a  few 
moments'  conversation,  however,  are  only  necessary  to  impress 
you  with  the  feeling  that  you  are  in  the  presence  of  a  remarkable 
man.  There  is  the  simplicity  of  a  child  in  his  manners,  yet  his  rich 
and  varied  experience  crowds  upon  you,  in  anecdote  and  incident, 
in  the  statement  of  broad  principles  and  philosophic  reflections, 
and  carries  }^ou  away  with  the  gentleness  and  the  power  of  a 
deep  and  irresistible  stream.  His  reminiscences  of  great  men 
are  charming  beyond  expression,  and  he  seems  particularly  fond 
of  dwelling  upon  the  mental  characteristics  of  such  men  as  Craw 
ford,  Clay,  Webster,  and  their  compeers,  analyzing  with  singular 
perception  their  peculiarities  ;  and,  by  happy  flashes  of  illustra 
tion,  giving  you  a  key  to  their  characters — crystallizing  them,  in 
deed,  until  you  could  see  through  and  through  them,  and  under 
stand  them  as  if  you  had  a  new  sense  of  mental  perception." 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

"  When  Mr.  Stephens  rises  to  speak,  there  is  a  sort  of  electric 
communication  among  the  audience,  as  if  something  was  about  to 
be  uttered  that  was  worth  listening  to.  The  loungers  take  their 
seats,  and  the  talkers  become  silent,  thus  paying  an  involuntary 
compliment  to  Mr.  Stephens'  talents  and  high  claims  as  a  gentle 
man.  At  first  his  voice  is  scarcely  distinguishable ;  but  in  a  fe\v 
moments  you  are  surj  rised  at  its  volume,  and  you  are  soon  con* 


14:0  ALEXANDER    H.   STEPHENS. 

vinced  that  his  lungs  are  in  perfect  order ;  and  as  his  ideas  flow, 
you  are  not  surprised  at  the  rapt  attention  he  commands.  His 
style  of  speaking  is  singularly  polished ;  but  he  conceals  his  art, 
and  appears,  to  the  superficial  observer,  to  be  eloquent  by  inspi 
ration.  The  leading  characteristic  of  his  mind  is  great  practical 
good  sense,  for  his  arguments  are  always  of  the  most  solid  and 
logical  kind  ;  hence  his  permanent  influence  as  a  statesman,  while 
his  bright  scintillations  of  wit  and  profuse  adornment  secure  him 
a  constant  popularity  as  an  orator.  Possessed  of  a  mind  too 
great  to  be  restrained  by  mere  partisan  influence,  he  has  there 
fore  the  widest  possible  field  of  action  :  at  one  time  heading  a 
forlorn  hope,  and  leading  it  to  victory ;  at  another,  giving  grace 
and  character  to  a  triumphant  majority.  Common  as  it  is  to  im 
pugn  the  motives  of  many  of  our  public  servants,  and  charge 
them  directly  with  corruption,  Mr.  Stephens  has  escaped  without 
even  the  taint  of  suspicion ;  an  inflexible  honesty  of  purpose  on 
his  part,  as  a  governing  principle,  is  awarded  to  him  by  his 
veriest  political  foe. 

"  The  report  that  Mr.  Stephens  will  retire  from  Congress  at 
the  end  of  the  present  session  remains  nncontradicted,  yet  we 
indulge  the  hope  that  he  only  seeks  temporary  repose  before 
again  entering  upon  active  political  life." 

Mr.  Stephens  did  retire,  without  any  idea  or  intention  of 
ever  again  entering  public  life.  His  name,  however,  was  early 
mentioned  as  a  desirable  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  by 
friends  North  and  South,  and  the.  following  letter  from  a  dis- 
tingished  Judge,  is  a  fair  index  to  the  feelings  of  the  State : — 

"  GREENVILLE,  GA.,  December  Mth,  1859. 

"  SIR: — Your  letter  of  the  22d  is  received,  and  in  reply  to  your 
queries,  I  have  to  say  that  Mr.  Stephens  is  decidedly  my  first 
choice  as  a  candidate  for  the  next  President.  The  following  are, 
briefly,  some  of  niy  reasons  for  that  preference : 

"  1.  He  is  the  undoubted  choice  of  a  large  majority  of  the 
people  of  Georgia. 

"  2.  He  is  a  true  man,  and  an  enlightened  practical  statesman, 
who  would  administer  the  government  with  ability  and  economy, 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  141 

in  stricc  accordance  with  the  principles  observed  and  recognized, 
in  the  early  and  better  days  of  the  republic. 

"  3.  Because  he  is  an  available  man  for  a  candidate,  the  man 
for  the  times,  enjoying  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  true 
friends  of  constitutional  government  throughout  the  Union. 

"  4.  Because  he  has  not  sought  the  office  directly  or  indirectly, 
either  by  intriguing  for  the  nomination,  or  suffering  himself  to 
be  made  the  instrument  of  any  particular  clique  or  faction ;  con 
sequently  if  nominated  and  elected,  would  have  no  friends  to 
reward  or  enemies  to  punish,  but  will  faithfully  guard  and  pro 
tect  the  interests  of  the  whole  country,  and  every  section  of  it, 
in  obedience  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  land.  While 
Mr.  Stephens  is  my  first  choice  for  President,  being  an  old- 
fashioned  Jackson  democrat,  I  shall  cordially  support  the  nomi 
nee  of  the  Charleston  Convention,  when  fairly  and  properly 
made,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  and  usages  of  the  party. 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  HIRAM  WARNER. 

"  Dr.  JAMES  P.  HAMBLETON." 

The  views  of  Mr.  Stephens  as  to  that  memorable  campaign, 
are  chiefly  embodied  in  the  following  papers,  to  wit :  his  reply 
to  thirteen  prominent  citizens  of  Macon,  Georgia,  dated  May 
9th,  1860 ;  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Landrum,  of  July  1st,  1860 ;  his 
letter  to  the  editor  of  this  book  and  writer  of  this  sketch,  April 
8th,  I860,  and  to  Mr.  C.  D.  Curtis ; .  all  of  which  are  contained 
in  this  volume.  The  following  is  the  letter  to  the  writer  of 
these  pages  with  the  one  which  drew  it  forth.  It  is  part  of  the 
history  of  an  eventful  period. 

"  CONSTITUTIONALIST  OFFICE,  AUGUSTA,  GA.,  March  26th,  1860. 
"  Hon  A.  H.  STEPHENS  : 

"  DEAR  SIR  : — I  have  received  a  letter  from  one  of  the  delegates 
of  the  Eighth  Congressional  district,  requesting  me  to  take  his 
place  in  the  Charleston  Convention,  and  I  think  that  I  shall  go. 
The  purpose  of  this,  is  to  ask  permission  to  use  your  name  in 
the  Convention.  I  know  that  you  do  not  desire  it,  but  knowin<* 


142  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

the  pleasure  it  would  give  the  people  of  your  State,  would  3*011 
accept  the  nomination  if  offered?  I  have  been  informed  that  you 
have  already  answered  the  question,  but  I  do  not  know  it.  I 
trust  that  you  will  not  deem  this  intrusive  or  impertinent,  for  I 
feel  that  I  could  not  truly  represent  the  Eighth  district  by  any 
other  preference.  Very  respectfully, 

"HENRY  CLEVELAND." 

"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA,  8th  April,  1860. 
"DEAR  SIR: — You  must  excuse  the  delay  of  my  answer  to 
your  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo.  It  reached  the  office  here  during 
my  absence  to  Wilkes'  court.  All  the  last  week,  up  to  last  night, 
I  was  at  Warren  court ;  and  I  am  to  leave  home  this  evening  for 
Hancock,  where  I  shall  he  all  next  or  rather  all  the  present  week. 
I  can  therefore  now  answer  only  briefly,  but  pointedly  and  can 
didly.  I  do  not  wish  my  name  put  in  nomination  at  Charleston. 
I  do  not  wish  it  presented  by  the  Georgia  delegation  in  the  con 
vention.  I  not  only  do  not  wish  it  done,  but  I  protest  against 

its  being  done.     The  Presidency  is  an  office  I  do  not  want. 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

"  In  answer  to  your  question  whether  I  would  accept  a  nomi 
nation  if  tendered,  I  can  only  say  to  you  what  I  have  said  to 
others,  that  '  sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof.'  I  have 
no  idea  that  any  such  question  will  ever  be  presented  for  my 
serious  consideration ;  but  if  it  should  be,  my  action  would  be 
governed  solely  by  my  sense  of  duty  at  the  time. 

"  Lord  Coke,  when  upon  the  King's  Bench,  being  once  asked  by 
his  sovereign  how  he  would  decide  a  hypothetical  case  submitted 
to  him,  replied  in  substance,  if  not  in  the  identical  words — 
'When  the  case  happens,  I  shall  do  that  which  it  shall  be  fit  for  a 
Judge  to  do.'  And  so  I  say  in  reply  to  your  question,  When 
the  case  happens  I  shall  do  that  which  shall  be  fit  for  a  patriot 
to  do — or  at  least,  I  shall  do  that  which  my  own  sense  of  duty 
shall  require  me  to  do.  I  can  imagine  a  nomination  made  under 
circumstances  that  I  would  not  accept;  and  yet  a  nomination 
might  be  made — that  is,  it  is  within  the  range  of  possibility,  but 
not  within  the  limits  of  the  remotest  probability — under  such  cir 
cumstances  that  I  could  not  decline  without  being  greatly  dere- 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  143 

lict  in  duty.  No  good  citizen  could  refuse  to  perform  any  duty 
assigned  him  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  however  reluctant  he 
might  be,  and  however  hazardous  or  disagreeable  the  duty  might 
be,  if  the  public  good  require  it.  To  do  so,  in  civil  life,  would 
be  no  better  than  to  run  in  battle.  That  I  should  never  do,  if  for 
the  public  safety,  I  was  ordered  out  to  %post  where  instant  death 
was  inevitable.  This  is  all  the  answer,  as  a  good  citizen  and  an 
honest  man,  I  can  give  you.  I  state  to  you,  frankly,  that  it 
would  be  with  reluctance  that  I  should,  under  any  circumstances, 
accept  the  duties  of  President  of  the  United  States.  It  would  be 
only  from  a  sense  of  duty.  And  I  should  feel  the  greater  reluc 
tance,  from  the  weight  of  the  grade  of  the  duty.  With  its  higher 
responsibilities,  the  greater  would  be  my  reluctance.  As  for  the 
honor  of  any  position,  that,  in  my  judgment,  depends  entirely 
upon  the  deeds  performed  in  the  position.  So  far  from  the 
Presidency,  or  any  other  office,  conferring  honor  upon  one  who 
is  so  lucky,  in  his  own  opinion,  as  to  get  it,  I  consider  it  a  great 
dishonor  if  he  is  not,  in  all  the  requirements  of  qualification, 
thoroughly  up  to  the  full  measure  of  the  position. 

"  'Honor  and  shame  from  no  condition  rise, 
Act  well  your  part — there  all  the  honor  lies.' 

"  This  is  as  true  of  any  position  as  it  is  of  any  condition  of  life. 
It  is  as  true  of  office  as  it  is  of  any  thing  else.  And,  measuring 
myself  by  this  rule,  I  tell  you,  candidly,  I  should  shrink  from 
assuming  the  high  position  of  chief  magistrate  of  this  great 
republic,  with  its  diversity  of  interests,  prejudices  and  passions, 
its  sectional  strifes  and  troubles.  I  would,  in  every  possible  con 
tingency,  prefer  to  see  some  other  man,  who  feels  desirous  of  un 
dertaking  it,  gratified  in  his  wishes  ;  some  man  who,  with  the 
desire,  has  in  a  much  greater  degree  the  requisite  qualifications 
for  directing  the  future  destiny  of  such  great  interests  than  I 
have.  I  should  greatly  prefer  to  see  any  of  the  prominent  men 
now  spoken  of  in  the  democratic  party,  not  excepting  Judge 
Douglas,  assigned  that  position,  than  that  it  should  be  assigned 
to  me.  Were  the  office  to  be  disposed  of  by  lot  between  them 
and  myself,  I  should  feel  relieved  at  its  being  cast  upon  either  of 
the  others. 


144  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"  These,  sir,  are  my  feelings  and  views  upon  the  subject  of  your 
letter,  as  clearly  as  I  can  give  them.  I  have  not  been  able  to 
give  them  as  briefly  as  I  expected  when  I  commenced,  but  I  trust 
you  will  find  no  difficulty  in  understanding  them,  and  fully  appre 
ciating  them.  And  besides  this,  I  have  nothing  else  to  say,  ex 
cept  to  express  the  earnest  hope  that  the  members  of  the  Charles 
ton  Convention,  from  all  parts  and  sections  of  the  country,  ivill 
enter  into  their  councils  duly  impressed  with  the  importance  of 
their  action — the  importance  of  coolness,  -prudence,  and  discre 
tion — wisdom,  and  the  most  enlarged  patriotism — the  importance 
of  overlooking  personal  likes  or  dislikes,  and  directing  their 
attention  solely  to  country,  its  present  condition  and  future 
hopes ;  for  upon  the  action  of  that  convention,  in  my  judgment, 
the  peace,  welfare,  and  even  permanancy  of  our  government,  as 
it  now  exists,  may,  and  very  probably  will,  depend.  Greater 
responsibility  did  not  rest  upon  the  convention  that  framed  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States.  We  are  on  the  eve  of  one  of 
.our  great  political  battles,  which  will  mark  the  course  of  events 
for  many  years  to  come.  The  history  of  the  world  abounds  in 
wars  and  battles.  But  in  it  we  see  some  of  much  greater  conse 
quence  to  mankind  than  others.  Some  that  mark  epochs  of  them 
selves — such  as  Marathon,  and  Waterloo,  for  instance.  So  we, 
in  our  political  contests,  have  had  many  hard-fought  struggles, 
that  passed  away  with  the  passions  that  entered  into  them  ;  but 
the  conflict  now  approaching  will  be  a  Marathon  or  a  Waterloo 
in  our  history.  But  enough.  Yours,  truly, 

"ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"  HENRY  CLEVELAND,  Augusta,  Ga." 

Mr.  Stephens  had  refused  solicitations  to  speak  in  the  earlier 
part  of  the  canvass  of  1860,  but  his  ardent  desire  to  perpetuate 
a  constitutional  Union,  drew  him  out,  in  spite  of  feeble  health, 
and  his  own  repeated  protestations.  His  first  speech  in  the 
canvass  of  that  year,  was  in  the  City  Hall  Park,  Augusta,  Sep 
tember  1st,  of  1859,  during  the  delivery  of  which  he  was  com 
pelled  to  sit  down  from  exhaustion.  We  publish  it  in  full. 

He  made  two  or  three  other  speeches  during  that  campaign, 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  145 

none  of  which,  have  ever  been  reported.  His  speech  in  Colum 
bus,  Georgia,  was  one  of  the  grandest  efforts  of  his  life,  and  of 
most  wonderful  effect  upon  his  audience.  In  the  midst  of  his 
impressive  appeal  to  "  Stand  by  the  constitution  in  any  and 
every  event,"  the  vast  crowd  arose  to  their  feet,  as  one  man; 
and  while  venerable  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  dignified 
statesmen,  and  citizens,  seemed  to  vie  with  each  other  in  enthu 
siasm,  the  prolonged  shouts  of  applause  stopped  for  awhile  the 
utterance  of  the  orator.  His  speech  in  Dalton,  Georgia,  was 
also  eminently  successful.  He  was  sick  in  bed,  and  only  con 
sented  to  go  that  his  presence  might  be  known.  Hon.  Linton 
Stephens,  late  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  made  one  of  those 
magnificent  speeches,  in  which  he  almost  surpasses  the  elo 
quence  of  his  brother  Alexander ;  and  that  brother  became 
inspired  by  its  glowing  words.  He  arose,  with  a  borrowed 
expression  of  sad  but  sublime  pity  for  the  delusions  and  dis 
sensions  of  his  countrymen  :  "  Oh,  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem !  thou 
that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto 
thee ;  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together-, 
even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  but  ye 
would  not  I"  His  whole  effort  was  to  rouse  the  people  to  a 
sense  of  the  great  impending  dangers,  to  impress  upon  them 
the  great  importance  of  adhering  to  their  old  established  prin 
ciples,  and  of  sustaining,  throughout  a  common  country,  those 
men  who  were  standing  by  those  principles,  as  the  only  means 
of  maintaining  the  constitution,  and  the  Union  under  it. 

Attempts  were  made  to  break  the  force  of  the  speech,  by  in 
terruptions  with  questions  touching  Douglas's  position.  All 
these  served  but  as  fuel  to  light  up  the  flame  of  his  eloquence. 

In  an  eloquent  burst  of  oratory,  raising  his  thin  hand  toward 
heaven,  he  said :  "  Rather  than  that  this  hand  should  put  a 
vote  in  the  ballot-box  in  condemnation  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
I  would  prefer  letting  it  go  down  to  posterity  covered  with  the 
infamy  of  having  poured  the  hemlock  in  the  cup  of  Socrates." 
We  quote  from  memory  only.  The  speech  was  never  reported. 
10 


146  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

Soon  after  this,  Mr.  Stephens  met  Mr.  Douglas,  on  his  ap 
pearance  in  Atlanta,  Georgia,  and  introduced  him  to  the  vast 
audience  with  the  following  highly  complimentary  remarks : 

"  FELLOW-CITIZENS  or  GEORGIA  : — The  occasion  of  our  meeting 
to-day  is  one  of  deep  interest.  No  subject  of  an  earthly  character 
is  more  interesting  to  a  free  people  than  the  principles  of  their 
government.  We  have  come  up  here  to  hear  from  the  candidate 
of  the  national  democratic  party  the  principles  which  would 
govern  his  administration  if  he  should  be  elected,  the  principles 
which  should  govern  the  administration  of  any  man  who  may  be 
elected,  and  the  only  principles,  as  we  believe,  upon  which  the 
union  of  the  States  can  be  preserved,  and  the  liberties  of  the 
people  perpetuated. 

"  My  countrymen,  I  bespeak  for  that  candidate  to-day  a  care 
ful,  calm,  and  patient  hearing.  He  comes  to  address  not  your 
passions,  but  your  intellects.  A  free  government  can  only  be 
maintained  by  the  virtue,  by  the  intelligence,  and  by  the  patriot 
ism  of  the  people.  'Ours  is  the  only  really  free  government  on 
the  face  of  the  earth,  and  our  institutions,  which  cost  so  much, 
and  which  are  so  dear  to  every  patriot,  can  only  be  maintained 
by  the  exercise  of  intelligence,  of  virtue,  and  patriotism.  This 
must  be  done  at  the  ballot-box. 

"  Yonder  sun,  that  shines  so  brilliantly  and  auspiciously  upon 
us  to-day  in  Ms  circuit  around  the  earth,  lights  up  no  nation 
where  the  people  enjoy  the  liberties  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  do.  [Cheers.]  My  countrymen,  I  make  an  appeal 
to  you  that  you  shall  so  act  on  all  occasions  that  these  liberties 
may  be  perpetuated.  To  the  old  men,  to  the  middle  aged  men, 
and  to  the  boys  in  this  crowd,  I  make  this  appeal.  You  have 
heard  much  of  the  distingushed  Senator,  now  the  candidate  of 
the  national  democratic  party.  You  have  heard  much  that  was 
true,  and  you  have,  also,  doubtless,  heard  much  that  was  not. 

"  We  wish  you  to-day  to  give  him  your  close  attention,  and 
from  his  own  lips,  and  not  from  those  of  another,  to  make  up 
your  judgment.  Then  I  appeal  to  every  man,  when  he  leaves 
him,  if  he  speaks  the  words  of  patriotism  and  truth,  to  act  toward 
him  as  a  patriot  should,  looking  to  the  best  interests  of  his 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  147 

country.  You  have  heard  it  said  that  he  is  an  enemy  to  the 
equality  of  the  States.  I  have  known  him  for  the  last  sixteen 
years — we  entered  Congress  together,  and  I  maintain  before  you 
that  from  that  day  to  this,  no  man  in  the  public  councils  has 
been  truer,  or  firmer,  or  bolder,  in  defending  not  only  the 
equality  of  the  States,  but  the  equality  of  all  the  citizens  of  this 
republic.  ['Hurrah  for  Douglas,' and  immense  applause.]  But 
hear  him  for  yourselves,  take  it  not  from  me,  but  hear 
what  he  says,  and  then  pronounce  your  judgments  accordingly. 

*  *  *  #  #  * 

"  I  now,  my  fellow-countrymen,  have  the  pleasure  of  intro 
ducing  to  you  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  the  national  democratic 
candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States."  [Immense  and 
long-continued  applause.] 

In  the  opening  of  Senator  Douglas's  speech  on  that  occasion, 
some  interesting  facts  were  brought  to  light,  which  show,  not 
only  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  willing  to  sacrifice  his  own  ambi 
tion  for  the  general  good ;  but  also,  that  Mr.  Stephens  was  no 
aspirant  for  the  office,  the  candidacy  of  which  seemed  seeking 
him.  Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

"FELLOW-CITIZENS  OP  GEORGIA: — Such  an  introduction  from 
one  of  the  first  intellects  and  purest  patriots  that  this  republic 
ever  produced,  fills  my  heart  with  gratitude.  ['  Hurrah  for 
Stephens,'  and  cheers.]  I  come  before  you  to-day,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  soliciting  your  votes,  but  for  the  purpose  of  vindicat 
ing  those  principles  of  government  upon  which  I  believe  the  equal 
rights  of  all  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  may  be  preserved 
within  the  Union. 

"  I  hold  that  there  is  no  grievance  of  which  we  complain  for 
which  disunion  would  afford  an  adequate  remedy.  I  believe  that 
there  can  be  no  grievance  in  this  country  for  which  the  constitu 
tion  and  the  laws  will  not  afford  ample  remedy  within  the  Union. 
All  that  is  necessary  is,  that  each  and  every  clause  of  the  con 
stitution  shall  be  carried  into  effect  in  good  faith.  Every  right 
guaranteed  by  that  instrument,  every  duty  imposed  by  it,  must 
be  carefullj7  protected  and  faithfully  performed.  So  long  as  we 


148  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

live  under  a  constitution  which  is  the  supreme  law  of  all  the 
States,  it  must  be  executed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  afford  equal 
rights  and  equal  protection  to  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  of  this 
Confederacy. 

*****  * 

"My  friends  at  Baltimore,  in  1860,  did  not  demand,  as  a  sine 
qua  non,  either  a  change  in  the  platform  or  the  nomination  of  any 
particular  man.  It  is  well  known  that  I  stood  ready  and  anxious 
to  withdraw  my  name  at  any  moment  that  it  would  restore  har 
mony  by  nominating  a  sound  man  on  the  Cincinnati  platform. 
[Applause.]  And  I  will  now  state,  what  no  man  before  has 
known,  and  what,  once  stated,  will  astonish  the  person  alluded  to 
more  than  any  one  in  the  assemblage.  Pending  the  convention, 
I  wrote  letters  to  my  friend  Richardson,  at  Baltimore,  urging 
that  if  they  would  only  stand  by  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and 
accept  a  southern  man  on  that  platform — I  implored  him  to  con 
sult  our  friends,  and  get  them  to  accept  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 
of  Georgia,  as  the  man.  [Tremendous  applause.]  The  secession 
ists  knew  that  I  had  proposed  to  withdraw  my  name,  and  unite 
upon  a  true  non-intervention  man,  before  they  seceded  at  Balti 
more.  They  seceded  with  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  I  was 
not  asking  a  nomination,  but  was  simply  fighting  a  battle  for 
principles.  [Cheers.] 

"  Now  for  an  evidence  of  the  fact  that  they  knew  that  I  was 
ready  to  withdraw,  although  they  did  not  know  who  would  be  my 
choice,  if  I  did,  nor  did  he  [pointing  to  Mr.  Stephens]  ever  dream 
of  it  up  to  this  hour.  As  evidence  of  the  fact,  telegraphic  de 
spatches  were  sent  off,  on  Friday  night,  ten  or  fifteen  hours  before 
the  bolt,  announcing  that  Douglas  had  written  letters  to  Balti 
more  withdrawing  his  name  and  going  for  a  southern  man.  [Ap 
plause.]  Those  despatches  were  sent  by  the  seceders  to  all 
portions  of  the  country,  and  the  files  of  the  daily  papers  of  that 
day  will  attest  the  fact.  I  have  alluded  to  this  matter  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  there  has  been  no  unholy  ambition 
stimulating  me  in  this  contest."  [Cheers.] 

What  Mr.  Douglas  said  in  the  same  speech,  on  the  Georgia 
platform  of  1850,  we  have  given  before. 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  14:9 


VI. 

POSITION  ON  THE   QUESTION   OF  SECESSION. 

SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  GEORGIA,  14TH  NOVEM 
BER,  1860 — CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  MR.  LINCOLN — SPEECH 
IN  THE  SECESSION  CONVENTION — DELEGATE  *TO  THE  CON 
GRESS  IN  MONTGOMERY,  AND  ELECTED  VICE-PRESIDENT  OF 
THE  CONFEDERATE  STATES'  ORGANIZATION. 

THE  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  attended  with,  the  greatest 
excitement.  Many  of  the  leading  men  of  the  South  had  dur 
ing  the  canvass  declared  themselves  openly  for  secession  in  that 
event.  This  sentiment  spread  with  amazing  furor  as  soon  as 
the  result  was  known.  The  legislature  was  in  session.  There 
was  a  strong  feeling  with  many  of  the  members  to  declare  the 
State  out  of  the  Union,  and  by  acts  of  that  body  to  resume 
the  .sovereign  powers  of  the  State.  A  very  large  majority 
were  against  remaining  longer  in  the  Union.  The  most  ex 
citing  and  inflammatory  speeches  were  made  night  after  night 
by  prominent  men  of  the  State  not  members.  Mr.  Stephens 
was  invited  by  the  more  conservative  portion  to  give  them  his 
views  upon  the  crisis.  He  went  to  Milledgeville,  and,  in  response 
to  the  call,  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  November  delivered 
the  memorable  speech  which  belongs  to  the  household  words 
of  the  Union — a  part  of  the  nation's  history,  and  a  portion  of 
its  heart.* 

*  At  the  close  of  this  speech,  Hon.  Robert  Toombs,  his  great  opponent, 
arose  and  said :  "  Fellow-citizens,  we  have  just  listened  to  a  speech  from 
one  of  the  brightest  intellects  and  purest  patriots  that  now  lives.  I  move 
that  this  meeting  now  adjourn,  with  three  cheers  for  Alexander  H.  Ste 
phens,  of  Georgia."  They  were  given  with  a  good  will. 

That  was  a  gloomy  time  for  the  lovers  of  the  Union,  as  the  following 


150  ALEXANDEK   H.    STEPHENS. 

This  speech,  though  so  widely  and  extensively  circulated, 
was  entirely  extemporaneous,  as  were  all  the  political  speeches 
he  ever  made,  save  two — the  one  of  July  4th,  1834,  the  other  of 
February  22d,  1866.  It  was  never  fully  revised  by  him,  as  will 
appear  from  the  following  correspondence.  It  had  made  a  deep 
impression  South  and  North,  and  gave  rise  to  the  correspond 
ence  between  the  Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  President 
elect,  and  himself,  which  Mr.  Stephens  for  the  first  time  per 
mits  to  be  published.  We  are  informed  by  Mr.  Stephens,  that 
no  person  had  ever  seen  the  letters  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  him  until 
since  his  return  from  Fort  Warren,  in  1865,  except  his  private 
secretaries. 

The  "For  your  own  eye  only'1'1  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  been 
sacredly  observed,  as  far  as  possible,  so  long  as  it  was  deemed 
at  all  necessary  or  proper. 

The  correspondence  is  now  given,  not  only  for  its  own  in 
trinsic  interest,  but  as  throwing  light  on  Mr.  Stephens'  views 
and  positions  at  that  time.  Mr.  Lincoln's  two  letters  are  given 
in  fac-simile,  as  well  as  the  copy  retained  of  Mr.  Stephens'  first 
letter  to  him. 

anecdote  will  show :  That  night,  Herschel  Y.  Johnson,  the  defeated  can 
didate  for  Yice-President,  could  not  refrain  from  congratulating  Mr. 
Toombs  upon  his  generous  conduct  to  an  opponent,  who  was  addressing 
so  large  a  majority  of  secessionists,  and  told  him  that  his  concluding  be 
havior,  on  the  motion  to  adjourn,  was  admirable.  "Yes,"  saidlCoombs, 
"  I  always  behave  myself  at  a  funeral !"  Mr.  Toombs  had  spoken  the 
night  before,  and  it  was  to  his  impassioned  eloquence  that  Mr.  Stephens 
had  mainly  replied. 


J. 


0      y 


££~     &4    /^   yt*^r&*'* 

/ 


JL. 


.g/AJfrO 


J    £v*^£s     jfef 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  151 

"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA,  30th  Dec.,  1860. 

"  DEAR  SIR  : — Yours  of  the  22d  instant  was  received  two  days 
ago.  I  hold  it  and  appreciate  it  as  you  intended.  Personally  I 
am  not  your  enemy — far  from  it — and  however  widely  we  may 
differ  politically,  yet  I  trust  we  both  have  an  earnest  desire  to  pre 
serve  and  maintain  the  Union  of  the  States,  if  it  can  be  done  upon 
the  principles  and  furtherance  of  the  objects  for  which  it  was 
formed.  It  was  with  such  feelings  on  my  part,  that  I  suggested 
to  you  in  my  former  note  the  heavy  responsibility  now  resting 
on  you,  and  with  the  same  feelings  I  will  now  take  the  liberty  of 
saying  in  all  frankness  and  earnestness,  that  this  great  object 
can  never  be  attained  by  force.  This  is  my  settled  conviction. 
Consider  the  opinion,  weigh  it,  and  pass  upon  it  for  yourself. 
An  error  on  this  point  may  lead  to  the  most  disastrous  conse 
quences.  I  will  also  add,  that  in  my  judgment  the  people  of 
the  South  do  not  entertain  any  fears  that  a  Republican  Adminis 
tration,  or  at  least  the  one  about  to  be  inaugurated,  would 
attempt  to  interfere  directly  and  immediately  with  slavery  in  the 
States.  Their  apprehension  and  disquietude  do  not  spring  from 
that  source.  They  do  not  arise  from  the  fact  of  the  known  anti- 
slavery  opinions  of  the  President  elect.  Washington,  Jefferson, 
and  other -Presidents  are  generally  admitted  to  have  been  anti- 
slavery  in  sentiment.  But  in  those  days  anti-slavery  did  not 
enter  as  an  element  into  party  organizations. 

"  Questions  of  other  kinds,  relating  to  the  foreign  and  domes 
tic  policy — commerce,  finance,  and  other  legitimate  objects  of  the 
general  government — were  the  basis  of  such  associations  in  their 
day.  The  private  opinions  of  individuals  upon  the  subject  of 
African  slavery,  or  the  status  of  the  negro  with  us,  were  not  looked 
to  in  the  choice  of  Federal  officers,  any  more  than  their  views 
upon  matters  of  religion,  or  any  other  subject  over  which  the 
government  under  the  constitution  had  no  control.  But  now 
this  subject,  which  is  confessedly  on  all  sides  outside  of  the  con 
stitutional  action  of  the  government  so  far  as  the  States  are  con 
cerned,  is  made  the  '  central  idea'  in  the  platform  of  principles 
announced  by  the  triumphant  party.  The  leading  object  seems 
to  be  simpty,  and  wantonly,  if  you  please,  to  put  the  institutions 


152  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

of  nearly  half  the  States  under  the  ban  of  public  opinion  and 
national  condemnation.  This,  upon  general  principles,  is  quite 
enough  of  itself  to  arouse  a  spirit  not  only  of  general  indignation 
but  of  revolt  on  the  part  of  the  proscribed.  Let  me  illustrate.  It  is 
generally  conceded,  by  the  republicans  even,  that  Congress  can 
not  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States.  It  is  equally  conceded 
that  Congress  cannot  establish  any  form  of  religious  worship. 
Now  suppose  that  any  one  of  the  present  Christian  churches  or 
sects  prevailed  in  all  the  Southern  States,  but  had  no  existence 
in  any  one  of  the  Northern  States — under  such  circumstances 
suppose  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  should  organize  a 
political  party — not  upon  a  foreign  or  domestic  policy,  but  with 
one  leading  idea  of  condemnation  of  the  doctrines  and  tenets  of 
that  particular  church,  and  with  the  avowed  object  of  preventing 
its  extension  into  the  common  territories,  even  after  the  highest 
judicial  tribunal  of  the  land  had  decided  they  had  no  such  con 
stitutional  power !  And  suppose  that  a  party  so  organized  should 
carry  a  Presidential  election  !  Is  it  not  apparent  that  a  general 
feeling  of  resistance  to  the  success,  aims,  and  objects  of  such  a 
party  would  necessarity  and  rightfully  ensue  ?  Would  it  not  be 
the  inevitable  consequence  ?  And  the  more  so,  if  possible,  from 
the  admitted  fact  that  it  was  a  matter  beyond  their  control,  and 
one  that  they  ought  not  in  the  spirit  of  comity  between  co-States 
to  attempt  to  meddle  with.  I  submit  these  thoughts  to  you  for 
your  calm  reflection.  We  at  the  South  do  think  African 
slavery,  as  it  exists  with  us,  both  morally  and  politically  right. 
This  opinion  is  founded  upon  the  inferiority  of  the  black  race. 
You,  however,  and  perhaps  a  majority  of  the  North,  think  it 
wrong.  Admit  the  difference  of  opinion.  The  same  difference 
of  opinion  existed  to  a  more  general  extent  amongst  those  who 
formed  the  constitution,  when  it  was  made  and  adopted.  The 
changes  have  been  mainly  to  our  side.  As  parties  were  not 
formed  on  this  difference  of  opinion  then,  why  should  they  be 
now.  The  same  difference  would  of  course  exist  in  the  supposed 
case  of  religion.  When  parties  or  combinations  of  men,  therefore, 
so  form  themselves,  must  it  not  be  assumed  to  arise  not  from 
reason  or  any  sense  of  justice,  but  from  fanaticism.  The  motive 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  153 

can  spring  from  no  other  source,  and  when  men  come  under  the 
influence  of  fanaticism,  there  is  no  telling  where  their  impulses  or 
passions  may  drive  them.  This  is  what  creates  our  discontent 
and  apprehension.  You  will  also  allow  me  to  say,  that  it  is 
neither  unnatural  or  unreasonable,  especially  when  we  see  the 
extent  to  which  this  reckless  spirit  has  already  gone.  Such,  for 
instance,  as  the  avowed  disregard  and  breach  of  the  constitution, 
in  the  passage  of  the  statutes  in  a  number  of  the  Northern  States 
against  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  service,  and  such  exhibi 
tions  of  madness  as  the  John  Brown  raid  into  Virginia,  which 
has  received  so  -much  sjonpathy  from  many,  and  no  open  con 
demnation  from  any  of  the  leading  men  of  the  present  dominant 
party.  For  a  very  clear  statement  of  the  prevailing  sentiment 
of  the  most  moderate  men  of  the  South  upon  them,  I  refer  you 
to  the  speech  of  Senator  Nicholson,  of  Tennessee,  which  I  inclose 
to  you.  Upon  a  review  of  the  whole,  who  can  say  that  the  gen 
eral  discontent  and  apprehension  prevailing  is  not  well  founded  ? 
"  In  addressing  you  thus,  I  would  have  you  understand  me  as 
being  not  a  personal  enemy,  but  as  one  who  would  have  you  do 
what  you  can  to  save  our  common  country.  A  word  '  fitly 
spoken'  by  you  now,  would  indeed  be  '  like  apples  of  gold,  in  pic 
tures  of  silver.'  I  entreat  you  be  not  deceived  as  to  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  danger,  or  as  to  the  remedy.  Conciliation  and 
harmony,  in  my  judgment,  can  never  be  established  by  force. 
Nor  can  the  Union  under  the  constitution  be  maintained  by  force. 
The  Union  was  formed  by  the  consent  of  independent  sovereign 
States.  Ultimate  sovereignty  still  resides  with  them  separately, 
which  can  be  resumed,  and  will  be  if  their  safety,  tranquillity  and 
security  in  their  judgment  require  it.  Under  our  system,  as  I 
view  it,  there  is  no  rightful  power  in  the  general  government  to 
coerce  a  State,  in  case  any  one  of  them  should  throw  herself  upon 
her  reserved  rights,  and  resume  the  full  exercise  of  her  sovereign 
powers.  Force  may  perpetuate  a  Union.  That  depends  upon 
the  contingencies  of  war.  But  such  a  Union  would  not  be  the 
Union  of  the  constitution.  It  would  be  nothing  short  of  a  con 
solidated  despotism.  Excuse  me  for  giving  you  these  views.  Ex 
cuse  the  strong  language  used.  Nothing  but  the  deep  interest  I 


154  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

feel  in  prospect,  of  the  most  alarming  dangers  now  threatening 
our  common  country,  could  induce  me  to  do  it.  Consider  well 
what  I  write,  and  let  it  have  such  weight  with  you,  as  in  your 
judgment,  under  all  the  responsibility  resting  upon  you,  it 
merits.  Yours  respectfully, 

"ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 
"  To  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN,  Springfield,  III. 

Mr.  Stephens  was  elected  to  the  secession  convention  of  the 
State,  which  assembled  at  Milledgeville  Georgia,  on  the  16th 
of  January,  1861.  There  he  continued  to  exert  himself  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  Union.  He  spoke  and  voted  against  the 
ordinance  of  secession.  But  after  it  passed,  was,  much  to  his 
surprise,  selected  as  one  of  the  delegates  to  the  city  of  Montgo 
mery.  He  hesitated  two  days,  but  from  the  hope  of  doing 
something  to  preserve  constitutional  liberty;  and  seeing  indica 
tions  that  many  in  the  North  were  seriously  inclined  to  let  the 
Southern  States  depart  in  peace,  if  they  were  in  earnest  in  the 
movement,  he  consented. 

President  Buchanan,  then  in  office,  held  that  there  was  no 
power  in  the  federal  government  under  the  constitution  to 
coerce  a  State.  The  Attorney-general  had  given  his  opinion  to 
the  same  effect.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  made  no  public  declaration 
of  his  policy,  no  public  expression  had  come  from  him  either 
approving  or  disapproving  of  the  constitutional  view,  expressed 
by  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  Annual  Message  of  December  before,  or 
what  would  be  the  course  of  his  administration  on  the  subject. 
While  in  Congress  with  Mr.  Stephens,  however,  in  1848,  he  ho,d 
expressed  the  following  sentiments  upon  the  general  subject  of 
the  right  of  any  people  to  change  their  government  and  form  a 
new  one,  which  in  their  opinion  would  suit  them  better : 

"Any  people,"  said  he,  "anywhere,  being  inclined  and  having 
the  power,  have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake  off  the  existing 
government,  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  better.  This 
is  a  most  valuable,  a  most  sacred  right — a  right  which,  we  hope 
and  believe,  is  to  liberate  the  world.  Nor  is  this  right  confined 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  155 

• 

to  cases  in  which  the  whole  people  of  an  existing  government 
may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any  portion  of  such  people  that  aan, 
may  revolutionize,  and  make  their  own  of  so  much  of  the  territory 
as  they  inhabit.  More  than  this,  a  majority  of  any  portion  of 
such  people  may  revolutionize,  putting  down  a  minority,  inter- 
mingled  with,  or  near  about  them,  who  may  oppose  their  move 
ments.  Such  minority  was  precisely  the  case  of  the  tories  of 
our  own  revolution.  It  is  a  quality  of  revolution  not  to  go  Try 
old  lines,  or  old  laws;  but  to  breakup  both,  and  make  new 
ones." 

V 

Many  of  the  leading  republican  papers  at  the  North,  the 
organs  of  the  party  which,  had  elected  him,  had  also  then 
recently  uttered  similar  sentiments,  and  had  given  strong  indi 
cation  of  a  willingness  to  let  "the  wayward  sisters  of  the 
South"  depart  in  peace,  if  they  were  in  earnest  and  chose 
so  to  do. 

The  New  York  Tribune,  for  instance,  as  early  as  the  10th  of 
November  before,  had  put  forth  the  following  : — 

"And  now  if  the  cotton  States  consider  the  value  of  the  Union 
debatable,  we  maintain  their  perfect  right  to  discuss  it.  Nay : 
we  hold,  with  Jefferson,  to  the  inalienable  right  of  communities 
to  alter  or  abolish  forms  of  government  that  have  become 
oppressive  or  injurious  ;  and,  if  the  cotton  States  shall  decide 
that  the}^  can  do  better  out  of  the  Union  than  in  it,  w^e  insist  on 
letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right  to  secede  may  be  a  revolu 
tionary  one,  but  it  exists  nevertheless ;  and  we  do  not  see  how 
one  party  can  have  a  right  to  clo  what  another  party  has  a  right 
to  prevent.  We  must  ever  resist  the  asserted  right  of  any  State 
to  remain  in  the  Union,  and  nullify  or  defy  the  laws  thereof ;  to 
withdraw  from  the  Union  is  quite  another  matter.  And,  when 
ever  a  considerable  section  of  our  Union  shall  deliberately 
resolve  to  go  out,  we  shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  designed 
to  keep  it  in.  We  hope  never  to  live  in  a  republic,  whereof  one 
section  is  pinned  to  the  residue  by  bayonets." 

Under    these    circumstances,    what   could   a  man    of    Mr. 


156  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

• 

Stephens'  impulses  and  nature  do,  but  yield  to  the  dictates  of  a 
philanthropic  heart  prompting  him  to  aid  in  saving  what  could 
be  saved  of  public  liberty  in  the  pending  general  disruption, 
which  seemed  to  be  determined  on  by  one  side  and  not  seri 
ously  objected  to  on  the  other  ?  With  this  view  and  this 
object,  he  did  yield  to  earnest  appeals,  not  only  from  members 
of  the  convention  after  his  unanimous  choice  by  that  body  as 
a  delegate,  but  to  appeals  from  other  friends  outside  of  the 
convention.  He  finally  consented  to  go,  and  was  once  more 
launched  most  reluctantly  on  the  tempest-tost  ocean  of  politics, 
on  a  voyage  more  perilous  than  ever  he  had  been  on  before, 
from  no  motive  of  selfish  ambition  or  personal  aggrandize 
ment,  but  solely  with  a  view  and  a  hope  of  being  able  to  do 
the  public  some  good.  Well  may  he  exclaim,  as  he  often 
does — 

"  What  grounds  we  build  our  hopes  upon ; 

life's  but  a  mist, 

And  in  the  dark  our  fortunes  meet  us." 

His  first  effort  was  to  preserve  the  principles  of  the  old  con 
stitution,  and  he,  therefore,  on  the  28th  of  January,  1861,  pre 
sented  to  the  convention  of  his  State  the  following  resolution 
as  part  of  the  directions  for  the  government  of  her  delegates : 

"  Be  it  Resolved,  That  said  delegates  be  likewise  authorized, 
upon  like  consultation  with  the  delegates  from  the  other  States 
in  said  Congress,  to  agree  upon  a  plan  of  permanent  government 
for  said  States,  upon  the  principles  and  basis  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  which  said  plan  or  constitution 
of  permanent  government  shall  not  be  binding  or  obligatory 
upon  the  people  of  Georgia,  unless  submitted  to,  approved,  and 
ratified  by  this  convention." 

With  these  views,  he  went  to  the  convention  at  Montgomery, 
was  on  the  committee  for,  and  took  an  active  part  in,  the  forma 
tion  of  the  constitution  for  the  provisional  government.  As  a 
parliamentarian,  he  had  an  unrivalled  reputation  in  the  old 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  157 

Congress,  and  it  devolved  upon  him  to  draw  up  the  rules  for 
the  Southern  Congress.  Some  very  marked  changes  were 
made  in  the  parliamentary  law  of  this  country;  for  instance, 
the  "Previous  Question"  was  omitted,  and  a  new  one  styled, 
"  The  Question"  made  to  answer  a  better  purpose.  The  Rules 
will  be  found  in  full  in  this  volume. 

After  the  constitution  was  formed,  he  (being  absent  from  the 
halls)  was  unanimously  elected  Yice-President  of  the  Confed 
erate  States.  On  the  evening  of  his  election,  he  was  serenaded, 
and  made  the  following  speech  : 

"  GENTLEMEN  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS,  for  though  we  met  as 
strangers  from  different  and  independent  States,  we  are  once 
more  citizens  of  a  common  country.  [Applause.]  Allow  me 
briefly  and  sincerely  to  return  you  my  unfeigned  thanks  for  this 
compliment.  The  state  of  my  health,  my  voice  and  the  night 
air,  apart  from  all  other  considerations,  will  prevent  me  from 
doing  more.  This  is  not  the  time  or  the-place  to  discuss  those 
great  questions  which  are  now  pressing  upon  our  public  coun 
sels.  We  are  in  a  transition  condition — in  the  process  of  a  new 
formation. 

"  Sufficient  to  say,  that  this  day  a  new  republic  has  been  born — 
the  Confederate  States  of  America  has  been  ushered  into  exist 
ence,  to  take  its  place  amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth — [cheers] 
— under  a  temporary  or  provisional  government,  it  is  true ;  but 
soon  to  be  followed  by  one  of  a  permanent  character,  which, 
while  it  surrenders  none  of  our  ancient  rights  and  liberties,  will 
secure  more  perfectly,  we  trust,  the  peace,  security,  and  domestic 
tranquillity  that  should  be  the  objects  of  all  governments.  [Ap 
plause.] 

"  What  is  to  be  the  future  of  this  new  government — the  fate  of 
this  new  republic — will  depend  upon  ourselves.  Six  States  only, 
at  present,  constitute  it — but  six  stars,  as  yet,  appear  in  our  ofcn- 
stellation — more,  we  trust,  will  soon  be  added.  By  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the  permanent  government, 
we  may  have  a  number  greater  than  the  original  thirteen — of  the 
original  Union,  and  with  more  than  three  times  their  population, 


158  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

Wealth,  and  power.  [Applause.]  With  such  a  beginning,  the 
prospect  of  the  future  presents  strong  hopes  to  the  patriot's 
heart,  for  a  bright  and  prosperous  career.  But  what  that  future 
shall  be,  depends,  I  sa}^  upon  ourselves  and  those  who  shall 
come  after  us.  Ours  is  a  republic.  And  all  republics,  to  be  per 
manent  and  prosperous,  must  be  supported  by  the  virtue,  intel 
ligence,  integrity,  and  patriotism  of  the  people.  These  are  the 
corner-stones  upon  which  the  temple  of  popular  liberty  must  be 
constructed,  to  stand  securely  and  permanently.  Resting  ours 
jipon  these,  we  need  fear  nothing  from  without  or  from  within. 
With  a  climate  unsurpassed  by  any  on  earth ;  with  staples  and  pro 
ductions  which  control  the  commerce  of  the  world  ;  with  institu 
tions,  so  far  as  regards  our  organic  and  social  policy,  in  strict 
conformity  to  nature  and  the  laws  of  the  Creator,  whether  read 
in  the  Book  of  Inspiration  or  in  the  great  book  of  manifestations 
around  us,  we  have  all  the  natural  elements  essential  to  the 
attainment  of  the  highest  degree  of  honor,  glory,  and  renown. 
[Applause.] 

"  These  institutions  have  been  much  assailed.  It  is  our  mission 
to  vindicate  the  great  truths  on  which  they  rest — and  with  them 
to  exhibit  the  highest  type  of  civilization  which  it  is  possible  for 
human  society  to  reach.  In  doing  this,  our  policy  should  be 
marked  by  a  desire  to  preserve  and  maintain  peace  with  all  other 
States  and  peoples.  If  this  cannot  be  done,  let  not  the  fault  lie 
at  our  door.  While  we  should  make  aggressions  on  none,  we 
should  be  prepared  to  repel  them  if  made  by  others ;  let  it  come 
from  whatever  quarter  it  may.  [Applause.]  We  ask  of  all  others 
simply  to  be  let  alone,  and  to  be  permitted  to  work  after  our  own 
safety,  security,  and  happiness,  in  our  own  way,  without  molest 
ing  or  giving  offence  to  any  other  people. 

"  Let  then  peace,  fraternity,  and  liberal  commercial  relations 
with  all  the  world,  be  our  motto.  [Cheers.]  With  these  princi- 
pl$s,  without  any  envy  toward  other  States  in  the  line  of  policy 
they  may  mark  out  for  themselves,  we  will  rather  invite  them  to 
a  generous  rivalship  in  all  that  develops  the  highest  qualities  of 
our  nature.  [Applause.] 

"  With  best  wishes  for  you,  gentlemen,  and  the  success  of 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

our  common  government,  this  day  announced,  I  bid  you  good 
night." 

The  following  testimony  to  Mr.  Stephens'  earnestness  in  en 
deavoring  to  preserve  the  Union  under  its  constitutional  guar 
antees,  did  not  appear  before  the  public  until  after  the  close  of 
the  war.  The  letter  was  published  by  Mr.  Curtis,  to  whom  it 
was  addressed,  in  1865,  while  Mr.  Stephens  was  in  prison. 

"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  30th  November,  1860. 

"My  DEAR  SIR: — Your  kind  and  esteemed  favor  of  the  23d 
instant  is  before  me.  I  was  truly  glad  to  receive  it,  and  to  know 
that  the  general  line  of  policy  indicated  in  the  speech  made  by 
me  before  our  legislature,  met  your  approval.  The  times  are 
indeed  perilous,  and  nothing  but  the  prompt  and  most  energetic 
action  on  the  part  of  the  patriots  in  all  sections  of  the  country 
can  save  the  republic.  Of  this  I  am  confident ;  but  I  am  not 
confident,  or  even  sanguine,  in  my  hopes  that  even  this  can  do  it. 
Still,  the  effort  should  be  made.  South  Carolina,  I  suppose,  will 
certainly  go  out  of  the  Union  forthwith — -just  as  soon  as  her  con 
vention  meets  and  can  act.  My  apprehension  is,  that  Georgia, 
Alabama,  Florida,  and  Mississippi  will  go  too.  If  South  Caro 
lina  would  wait  to  see  whether  the  offending  States  North  would 
change  their  position,  and  resume  their  constitutional  obligations, 
I  have  but  little  doubt  that  Georgia  would  also.  But  when  South 
Carolina  takes  the  lead,  I  have  but  little  hope  of  either  of  the  other 
named  States  holding  back.  This,  I  assure  you,  may  be  looked  for. 

"  What  sort  of  an  adjustment  can  afterward  be  made  to  restore 
union,  or  effect  reconciliation,  I  do  not  know.  I  am  certain,  how 
ever,  that  nothing  short  of  what  was  indicated  in  my  speech,  to 
which  you  refer,  can.  Should  the  seceding  States  be  let  alone,  and 
no  force  be  used  against  them,  perhaps  an  amicable  understanding 
and  settlement  of  the  matters  in  controversy  might  be  made  at  no 
distant  day.  But  if  resort  to  arms  is  once  had,  all  prospect  of 
peace  and  union,  in  my  judgment,  will  be  gone  forever.  I  write 
freely  and  frankly  to  you.  What  I  say  is  intended  for  yourself 
only,  and  not  for  the  public,  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  When  I 
tell  you  what  I  apprehend  will  be  the  course  of  the  Georgia  con- 


160  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS 

vention,  it  is  only  to  apprise  you  of  the  real  state  of  things 
here. 

"  There  are  a  large  number  of  our  people  who  will  sustain  my 
position  ;  but  I  feel  that  the  odds  are  against  us.  We  will  do  all 
that  we  can,  and  should  any  decided  demonstration  be  made  in 
Massachusetts,  or  other  Northern  States,  on  the  part  of  any  lead 
ing  republicans,  to  right  the  wrongs  of  which  our  people  so 
justly  complain,  it  would  greatly  aid  us  in  our  patriotic  endeavors 
to  save  the  constitution  and  the  Union  under  it.  This  is  my 
earnest  desire.  Thanking  you  again  for  your  letter,  and  hoping 
to  hear  from  you  again  as  to  the  prospect  in  Massachusetts,  I 
remain,  Yours,  truly, 

"ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"GEO.  T.  CUETIS,  Boston,  Massachusetts." 

As  another  interesting  matter  relating  to  Mr.  Stephens'  views 
and  feelings  on  the  state  of  the  country,  which  seem  not  yet 
generally  understood  in  all  parts  of  the  Union,  we  give  the 
following  correspondence,  which  has  never  been  made  public 
before.  It  was  before  his  election  as  Vice-President : 

"  WASHINGTON  CITY,  Jan.  3lst,  1861. 

"  DEAR  SIR  : — Thanking  you  for  your  hospitality  during  my 
tarry  at  your  place  in  the  latter  part  of  September  last,  I  pray 
the  privilege  of  putting  myself  under  renewed  obligations,  which 
will  be  expressed  in  a  few  words. 

"  The  public  of  the  North  are  in  a  measure  ignorant  of  your 
position  in  the  present  posture  of  affairs.  Will  you  do  me  the 
honor  to  explain  it  ? 

"  It  has  been  a  sincere  pleasure  to  me  to  speak  and  write  to 
Northern  people  regarding  your  patriotic  position  and  sentiments, 
as  enunciated  during  my  truly  pleasurable  sojourn  with  you. 
"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"SAMUEL  R.  G-LENN,  National  Hotel. 
"Hon,  A.  H.  STEPHENS." 

"  MONTGOMERY,  ALA.,  8th  Feb.,  1861. 

"  DEAR  SIR  : — Your  letter  of  the  31st  ult.,  addressed  to  me  at 
Crawfordville,  Ga.  (my  home),  was  received  by  me  yesterday  in 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  161 

this  place,  where  I  am,  as  perhaps  you  are  aware,  rendering  the 
public  whatever  aid  I  can  in  the  reconstruction  of  a  government 
for  our  people.  Events,  since  I  saw  you,  have  taken  the  course 
I  then  told  }^ou  I  thought  they  would  take.  I  then  saw  their 
shadows  '  coming  before.'  Had  others  I  could  name,  at  that  time 
been  as  sensibly  impressed  with  this  fact  as  I  was,  the  result 
might  have  been  averted.  The  utmost  of  my  power  was  exerted 
to  that  end,  but  all  in  vain.  In  answer  to  your  inquiry,  I  will 
barely  refer  you  to  the  speech  I  made  before  our  legislature,  14th 
November  last  (it  was  republished  in  the  Herald),  and  to  a  letter 
I  wrote  to  a  friend  in  New  York,  which  was  published  in  the 
Journal  of  Commerce  (without  my  knowledge)  soon  after,  and 
to  a  slip  you  will  find  inclosed  in  this  letter. 

"  From  all  these,  you  can  much  better  understand  my  position 
than  I  could  undertake  to  set  it  forth  in  a  letter. 

"  The  inclosed  slip,  you  will  see,  is  the  speech  I  made  in  our 
State  Convention — it  is  badly  printed,  but  you  can  understand 
it.  We  are  now  in  the  midst  of  a  revolution.  That  may  be  acted 
upon  as  a  fixed,  irrevocable  fact.  It  is  bootless  to  argue  the 
causes  that  produced  it,  or  whether  it  be  a  good  or  bad  thing  in 
itself.  The  former  will  be  the  task  of  the  historian.  The  latter 
is  a  problem  that  the  future  alone  can  solve.  The  wise  man — the 
patriot  and  statesman  in  either  section — will  take  the  fact  as  it 
exists,  and  do  the  best  he  can  under  circumstances  as  he  finds 
them,  for  the  good,  the  peace,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  his  own 
country.  I  have  neither  room  nor  time  to  say  more,  and  what  I 
have  said,  of  course,  is  intended  only  for  yourself.  The  great 
objection  to  private  letters  of  this  character  being  brought  before 
the  public  arises  from  the  haste  with  which  they  are  generally 
sketched.  This  is  particularly  the  case  with  myself.  While  I 
have  no  special  confidences  to  enjoin  in  any  thing  I  write  to  any 
body,  in  relation  to  public  affairs,  I  do  have  a  strong  and  repug 
nant  aversion  to  being  brought  before  the  public  against  my  will. 
"  Yours,  most  respectfully,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

"  SAMUEL  E-.  GLENN,  National  Hotel,.  Washington,  D.  C." 

The  following  is  the  letter  referred  to  in  the  letter  to  Mr. 
11 


162  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHEN'S. 

Glenn.     It  was  addressed  to  a  strong  secessionist  from  Georgia, 
then  residing  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

"  CRAWFORD VILLE,  GEORGIA,  25th  Nov.,  1860. 

"DEAR  SIR: — Your  kind  and  esteemed  favor  of  the  19th  inst. 
is  before  me,  for  which  you  will  please  accept  my  thanks.  I 
thoroughly  agree  with  you  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
dangers  by  which  we  are  surrounded,  and  the  importance  of 
united  action  on  the  part  of  our  people,  in  the  line  of  policy  to 
be  pursued. 

"I  know,  also,  that  there  breathes  not  a  man  in  Georgia  who  is 
more  sensitively  alive  to  her  rights,  interests,  safety,  honor,  and 
glory,  than  myself;  and  whatever  fate  befalls  us,  I  earnestly  hope 
that  we  shall  be  saved  from  the  worst  of  all  calamities — internal 
divisions,  contentions,  and  strifes.  The  great  and  leading  object 
aimed  at  by  me  in  Milledgeville,  was  to  produce  harmony  on  a 
right  line  of  policy. 

"  If  the  worst  comes  to  worst,  as  it  may,  and  our  State  has  to 
quit  the  Union,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  all  our  people 
should  be  united  cordially  in  this  course.  This,  I  feel  confident, 
can  only  be  effected  on  the  line  of  policy  I  indicated.  But  candor 
compels  me  to  say  that  I  am  not  without  hopes  that  our  rights 
may  be  maintained  and  our  wrongs  be  redressed,  in  the  Union. 
If  this  can  be  done,  it  is  my  earnest  wish.  I  think,  also,  that  it 
is  the  wish  of  a  majority  of  our  people.  If,  after  making  an  effort, 
we  shall  fail,  then  all  our  people  will  be  united  in  making  or 
adopting  the  '  Ultima-ratio  regum.' 

"  Even  in  that  case,  I  should  look  with  great  apprehension  as 
to  the  ultimate  result.  When  this  Union  is  dissevered,  if  of  ne 
cessity  it  must  be,  I  see  at  present  but  little  prospect  of  good 
government  afterward.  At  the  North,  I  feel  confident  anarchy 
will  soon  ensue ;  and  whether  we  shall  be  better  off  at  the  South, 
will  depend  upon  many  things  that  I  am  not  now  satisfied  that 
we  have  any  assurance  of.  Revolutions  are  much  easier  started 
than  controlled,  and  the  men  that  begin  them,  even  for  the  best 
purposes  and  objects,  seldom  end  them. 

"The  American  revolution  of  1T76  was  one  of  the  few  excep- 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  163 

tions  to  this  remark,  that  the  history  of  the  world  furnishes. 
Human  passions  are  like  the  winds — when  aroused  they  sweep 
every  thing  before  them  in  their  fury.  The  wise  and  the  good 
who  attempt  to  control  them,  will  themselves  most  likely  become 
the  victims.  This  has  been  the  history  of  the  downfall  of  all 
republics.  The  selfish,  the  ambitious,  and  the  bad,  will  generally 
take  the  lead.  When  the  moderate  men,  who  are  patriotic,  have 
gone  as  far  as  they  think  right  and  proper,  and  propose  to  recon 
struct,  there  will  be  found  a  class  below  them,  governed  by  no 
principle,  but  personal  objects,  who  will  be  for  pushing  matters 
further  and  further,  until  those  who  sowed  the  wind  will  find  that 
they  have  reaped  the  whirlwind. 

"  These  are  my  serious  apprehensions.  They  are  founded  upon 
the  experience  of  the  world  and  the  philosophy  of  human  nature, 
and  no  wise  man  should  contemn  them.  To  tear  down  and  build 
up  again,  are  very  different  things ;  and  before  tearing  down 
even  a  bad  government,  we  should  first  see  a  good  prospect  for  a 
better.  These  are  my  views  candidly  given.  If  there  is  one 
sentiment  in  my  breast  stronger  than  all  others,  it  is  an  earnest 
desire  for  the  peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness,  which  a  wise  and 
good  government  alone  can  secure.  I  have  no  object,  wish,  desire, 
or  ambition  beyond  this ;  and  if  I  should  in  any  respect  err  in 
endeavoring  to  attain  this  object,  it  will  be  an  error  of  the  head 
and  not  the  heart. 

"  With  great  personal  esteem  and  respect,  I  remain,  yours  truly, 

"ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

The  following  is  the  speech  made  by  Mr.  Stephens  in  the 
Georgia  secession  convention,  which  was  contained  in  the 
newspaper  slips  inclosed  to  Mr.  Glenn.  It  was  made  on 
Friday,  January  18th,  1861 ;  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Nesbit, 
of  Bibb,  and  Mr.  Johnson,  of  Jefferson,  being  under  considera 
tion  : — 

"  MR.  PRESIDENT  : — The  motion  of  the  honorable  delegate  from 
the  county  of  Jefferson  (Hon.  H.  Y.  Johnson)  is,  first  to  strike 
ou  •,  the  pending  resolution  offered  by  the  honorable  delegate  from 


164  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

Bibb  county  (Hon.  E.  A.  Nesbit),  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
propositions  he  has  submitted  by  way  of  substitute  ;  and  then,  in 
the  second  place,  to  refer  or  commit  both  these  propositions  to  a 
committee  of  twenty-one.  The  pending  question  is  on  the  mo 
tion  to  refer  to  such  committee.  The  object,  I  take  it,  is  not  to 
obstruct  or  delay  the  action  of  the  convention ;  it  is  rather  to 
present  in  the  most  direct  manner  a  test  question  between  those 
who  are  for  immediate  secession  and  those  who  prefer  the 
adoption  of  some  other  remedy,  looking  to  the  redress  of  existing 
wrongs,  in  the  Union  and  under  the  constitution,  before  taking 
this  last  resort.  The  first  of  the  resolutions  of  the  honorable 
delegate  from  Bibb — that  one  which  is  now  under  consideration — 
declares  it  to  be  the  right  and  duty  of  the  State  to  secede  from 
the  Union.  It  is  true,  this  resolution  as  stated  by  the  honorable 
mover,  does  not  in  express  terms  declare  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  secede  now,  nor  would  it  of  itself  commit  any  one  who 
might  vote  for  it,  for  immediate  secession.  But  that  is  evidently 
the  object  of  the  resolution.  It  is  to  commit  the  State  to  imme 
diate  secession ;  and  I  am  frank  to  say,  that  if  we  are  to  secede 
for  existing  causes,  without  any  further  effort  to  secure  our  rights 
under  the  constitution  in  the  Union — if  a  majority  of  the  conven 
tion  have  lost  all  hopes  and  look  upon  secession  as  the  only 
remedy  left — in  my  opinion  the  sooner  we  secede  the  better. 
Delay  can  effect  no  good.  How  this  convention  stands  upon 
that  question  I  do  not  know.  Some  claim  a  large  majority  for 
immediate  and  unconditional  secession,  while  others  think  there 
is  a  majority  still  looking  with  hope  to  redress  and  conciliation. 
I  am  very  desirous  of  having  this  point  settled  and  put  to  rest 
in  good  feeling  and  harmony  amongst  ourselves  by  a  test  vote. 
My  actions,  hereafter,  shall  be  influenced  by  that  vote.  If  a 
majority  express  themselves  for  secession  for  existing  causes,  and 
without  further  effort,  I  shall  forbear  from  pressing  upon  the 
consideration  of  this  body  any  plan  or  measures,  or  even  indi 
vidual  views  or  opinions,  calculated  to  embarrass,  obstruct,  delay, 
or  hinder  speedy  action  upon  the  resolve  of  the  majority.  It 
could  only  tend  to  divide  and  distract  our  counsels,  which  ought, 
above  every  ->ther  consideration,  to  be  harmonious  in  the  final 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  165 

result,  if  possible.  It  is  well  known  that  my  judgment  is  against 
secession  for  existing  causes.  I  have  not  lost  hope  of  securing 
our  rights  in  the  Union  and  under  the  constitution.  My  judg 
ment  on  this  point  is  as  unshaken  as  it  was  when  the  convention 
was  called.  I  do  not  now  intend  to  go  into  any  arguments  on 
the  subject.  No  good  could  be  effected  by  it.  That  was  fully 
considered  in  the  late  canvass,  and  I  doubt  not  every  delegate's 
mind  is  made  up  upon  the  question.  I  have  thought,  and  still 
think,  that  we  should  not  take  this  extreme  step  before  some  posi 
tive  aggression  upon  our  rights  by  the  general  government,  which 
may  never  occur ;  or  failure  after  effort  made  to  get  a  faithful 
performance  of  these  constitutional  obligations  on  the  part  of 
those  Confederate  States,  which  now  stand  so  derelict  in  their 
plighted  faith.  I  have  been,  and  am  still,  opposed  to  secession  as 
a  remedy  against  anticipated  aggressions  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Executive,  or  Congress.  I  have  held,  and  do  now  hold, 
that  the  point  of  resistance  should  be  the  point  oi  aggression. 
I  would  not  anticipate.  I  would  not  be  the  first  to  strike. 

Pardon  me,  Mr.  President,  for  trespassing  on  your  time  but 
for  a  moment.  I  have  ever  believed,  and  do  now  believe,  that  it 
is  to  the  interest  of  all  the  States  to  be  and  remain  united  under 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  a  faithful  performance 
by  each  of  all  its  constitutional  obligations.  If  the  Union  could 
be  maintained  on  this  basis,  and  on  these  principles,  I  think  ii 
would  be  the  best  for  the  security,  the  liberty,  happiness,  and 
common  prosperity  of  all.  I  do  further  feel  confident,  if  Georgia 
would  now  stand  firm  and  united  with  the  border  States,  as  they 
are  called,  in  an  effort  to  obtain  a  redress  of  these  grievances  on  the 
part  of  some  of  their  Northern  confederates,  whereof  they  have 
such  just  cause  to  complain,  that  complete  success  would  attend 
their  efforts  ;  our  just  and  reasonable  demands  would  be  granted. 
In  this  opinion  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  feel  almost  as  confident 
of  it  as  I  do  of  my  existence.  Thence,  if  upon  this  test  vote, 
which  I  trust  will  be  made  upon  the  motion  now  pending,  to  refer 
both  the  propositions  before  us  to  a  committee  of  twenty-one,  a 
majority  shall  vote  to  commit  them,  then  I  shall  do  all  I  can  to 
perfect  the  plan  of  united  southern  co-operation,  submitted  by 


166  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

the  honorable  delegate  from  Jefferson,  and  put  it  in  such  a  shape 
as  will  in  the  opinion  of  the  convention  best  secure  its  object. 
That  object,  as  I  understand  it,  does  not  look  to  secession  by  the 
16th  of  February  or  the  4th  of  March,  if  redress  should  not  be 
obtained  by  that  time.  In  my  opinion  it  cannot  be  obtained  by 
the  16th  of  February,  or  even  the  4th  of  March.  But  by  the  16th 
of  February  we  can  see  whether  the  border  States  and  other 
non-seceding  Southern  States  will  respond  to  our  call  for  the 
proposed  congress  or  convention  at  Atlanta.  If  they  do,  as  I 
trust  they  may,  then  that  body,  so  composed  of  representatives 
by  delegates  and  commissioners  as  contemplated,  from  the  whole 
of  the  slaveholding  States,  could,  and  would  I  doubt  not,  adopt 
either  our  plan  or  some  other,  which  would  fully  secure  our  rights 
with  ample  guarantees,  and  thus  preserve  and  maintain  the  ulti 
mate  peace  and  union  of  the  country.  Whatever  plan  of  peaceful 
adjustment  might  be  adopted  by  such  a  Congress,  I  feel  confi 
dent  would  be  acceded  to  by  the  people  of  every  Southern  State. 
This  would  not  be  done  in  a  month,  or  two  months,  or  perhaps 
short  of  twelve  months.  Time  would  necessarily  have  to  be 
allowed  for  a  consideration  of  the  question  submitted  to  the  people 
of  the  Northern  States,  and  for  their  deliberate  action  on  them 
in  view  of  all  their  interests,  present  and  future.  How  long  a 
time  should  be  allowed,  would  be  a  proper  question  for  that  Con 
gress  to  determine.  Meanwhile,  this  convention  could  continue 
its  existence,  by  adjourning  over  to  hear  and  decide  upon  the 
ultimate  result  of  this  patriotic  effort. 

"  This  is  but  a  sketch,  an  outline  of  the  policy,  I  shall  favor 
and  endeavor  to  get  adopted,  Mr.  President,  if  upon  the  test 
vote  it  shall  be  found  that  a  majority  are  not  in  favor  of  secession 
for  existing  causes,  and  without  further  efforts  in  the  way  of  pro 
curing  an  adjustment.  If,  however,  on  the  test  vote,  a  majority 
shall  be  against  the  line  of  polic}r  I  indicate,  then,  sir,  upon  the 
point  of  immediate  secession,  or  a  postponment  to  some  future 
day  between  this  and  the  4th  of  March,  I  am  clearly  of  the 
opinion  that  no  good  can  come  from  any  such  delay  or  postpon 
ment.  It  is  futile  and  delusive  to  indulge  in  any  hope  of  the 
present  Congress  doing  any  thing,  or  of  any  redress  of  wrongs 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  167 

being  effected  before  the  4th  of  March  next ;  that  I  look  upon  as 
impossible.  And,  as  I  said  before,  if  a  majority  are  for  secession 
for  existing  causes,  then  the  sooner  we  secede  the  better. 

"  If  that  is  the  line  of  policy  to  be  adopted  between  this  and  the 
4th  of  March,  whatever  is  to  be  done,  '  if  it  were  well  done,  when 
it  is  done,  'twere  well  that  it  were  done  quickly.'  This  is  my  view 
on  that  point. 

"  My  judgment,  as  is  well  known,  is  against  the  policy.  It  can 
not  receive  the  sanction  of  my  vote ;  but  if  the  judgment  of  a 
majority  of  this  convention,  embodying  as  it  does  the  sovereignty 
of  Georgia,  be  against  mine  ;  if  a  majority  of  the  delegates  in  this 
convention  shall  by  their  votes  dissolve  the  compact  of  Union 
which  has  connected  her  so  long  with  her  confederate  States,  and 
to  which  I  have  been  so  ardently  attached,  and  have  made  such 
efforts  to  continue  and  perpetuate  upon  the  principles  on  which 
it  was  founded,  I  shall  bow  in  submission  to  that  decision.  I 
have  looked,  and  do  look  upon  our  present  government  as  the 
best  in  the  world.  This  with  me  is  a  strong  conviction.  I  have 
acted  upon  it  as  a  great  truth.  But  another  great  truth  also 
presents  itself  to  my  mind,  and  that  is  this,  that  no  government  is 
a  good  one  for  any  people  who  do  not  so  consider  it.  The  wisdom 
of  all  governments  consists  mainly  in  their  adaptation  to  the 
habits,  the  tastes,  the  feelings,  wants,  and  affections  of  the  people. 
The  best  system  of  government  for  our  people  might  be  the 
worst  for  another.  If,  therefore,  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the 
sovereignty  of  Georgia  shall  be  pronounced  that  our  present 
government  is  a  bad  one,  and  shall  be  changed  for  some  other 
better  suited  to  our  people,  more  promotive  of  our  peace,  security, 
happiness,  and  prosperity,  while  my  individual  judgment  shall  be 
recorded  against  it,  yet  my  action  shall  conform  to  the  decision 
made.  Nay,  more  sir,  the  cause  of  the  State  shall  be  my  cause ; 
her  destiny  shall  be  my  destiny.  To  her  support,  defence,  and 
maintenance,  all  that  I  have  and  am  shall  be  pledged.  And  how 
ever  widely  we  of  this  convention,  as  well  as  the  people  of  the 
State  may  have  differed,  or  may  now  differ  to  the  proper  line  of 
policy  to  be  pursued  at  this  juncture,  I  trust  there  will  be  but  one 
feeling,  and  one  sentiment  here,  and  throughout  our  limits,  after 


168  ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS. 

the  line  of  policy  shall  be  adopted,  let  that  be  what  it  may.  The 
cause  of  Georgia,  whether  for  weal  or  woe,  must  and  will  be  the 
cause  of  us  all.  Her  safety,  rights,  interests,  and  honor,  what 
ever  fortunes  await  her,  must  and  will  be  cherished  in  all  our 
hearts,  and  defended  if  need  be  by  all  our  hands." 

This  is  the  only  speech  Mr.  Stephens  made  in  that  conven 
tion  on  the  subject  of  secession. 

We  also  state  in  this  connection,  that  a  speech,  purporting 
to  have  been  made  by  Mr.  Stephens  in  the  State  convention  on 
the  secession  debate,  is  an  entire  frabrication.  It  was  pub 
lished  and  extensively  circulated  in  the  North,  and  used  there 
as  a  campaign  document  in  the  fall  of  1864.  It  is  quoted  from 
in  the  notes  of  one  of  the  northern  pictorial  histories  of  the  war, 
perhaps  in  others.  No  such  speech  was  made  by  him.  What 
he  did  say  on  this  subject  before  the  legislature  is  given  in  this 
volume,  and  what  he  said  in  the  convention  we  have  just  given. 

It  is  said  of  Queen  Mary  the  First,  of  England,  that  grieving 
for  the  loss,  she  said  when  she  died  the  word  Calais  would  be 
found  engraven  on  her  heart.  Mr,  Stephens'  heart  should  be 
marked — THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Two  days  after  the  serenade  speech,  on  Monday,  February 
llth,  1861,  the  anniversary  of  his  birthday,  at  the  age  of  forty- 
nine,  he  was  inaugurated  Yice- President. 

After  the  Provisional  Government  was  organized,  Mr. 
Stephens  returned  to  Georgia,  and  met  his  State  convention, 
then  re-assembled  in  Savannah.  He  then  made  what  is  called 
his  "  Corner  stone!'1  speech,  which  was  delivered  at  the  Athenaeum, 
March  21st.  It  is  due  to  Mr.  Stephens  to  state,  as  we  have  once 
before  done,  that  the  speech  was  impromptu  and  not  reported 
with  great  accuracy. 

Having  been  appointed  a  commissioner,  he,  on  the  22d  of 
April,  1861,  delivered  the  able  address  to  the  Virginia  State 
convention,  that  resulted  in  allying  that  State  with  the  Confed 
eracy.  The  speech,  and  the  convention  entered  into  (drawn 
up  by  him),  that  followed  it,  we  give  in  full  in  their  place. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  169 

Immediately  on  his  return  from  the  Virginia  convention,  be 
ing  well  satisfied  himself  that  the  war  would  be  a  desperate  one, 
he  exerted  all  his  power  to  make  that  impression  on  the  Presi 
dent,  Cabinet,  and  Congress.  He  did  not  concur  in  Mr.  Mernmin- 
ger's  policy  of  a  produce  (or  cotton)  loan,  which  was  for  the 
planters  to  contribute  cotton,  tobacco,  etc.,  under  an  obligation 
to  sell  it,  and  turn  over  the  proceeds  to  the  government,  as  a 
loan.  He  urged  the  policy  of  the  government  buying  the 
cotton  and  giving  eight  per  cent,  bonds  for  it  at  once. 

It  is  true,  that  after  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Memminger's  plan  by 
the  Provisional  Government,  he  canvassed  various  portions  of 
the  State — stating  that  the  administration  plan  was  not  such  as 
met  his  approval,  but  was  in  hope  that  by  the  time  Congress 
met  in  Richmond,  that  plan  would  be  abandoned,  and  the 
other,  which  he  set  forth  as  a  better  policy,  would  be  adopted. 
The  change  would  not  affect  contributors  to  the  loan,  injuriously, 
but  rather,  if  made,  be  advantageous  to  them.  In  a  subse 
quent  speech,  at  Crawfordville,  November  1st,  1862,  which  is 
in  this  volume,  his  views  on  this  subject  were  given  at  large. 
In  canvassing  for  the  "cotton  loan,"  in  1861,  he  had  urged  all 
reporters  of  his  speeches  to  make  no  allusion  to  his  views  on 
the  right  policy  of  the  government  in  relation  to  cotton,  and  the 
public  report  of  his  speech,  in  1862,  was  allowed  by  him  only 
in  self-vindication  against  newspaper  assaults.  The  plan  of 
Mr.  Stephens  was  never  adopted.  It  is  now  conceded  by 
many  who  differed  with  him  then,  that  his  policy  was  not  only 
the  right  one  to  have  pursued,  but  might  have  changed  the 
result  of  the  war. 


170  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 


VII. 

VIEWS  ON  PUBLIC  POLICY  AND  COUESE  DURING 

THE   WAR. 

COTTON  LOAN — MARTIAL  LAW — CONSCRIPTION — IMPRESSMENTS 
— HABEAS  COlvPUS  SUSPENSION — EFFORTS  FOR  PEACE — THE 
TWO  BROTHERS — HAMPTON  ROADS  CONFERENCE. 

SOON  after  the  inauguration  of  the  permanent  government, 
Mr.  Stephens  found  himself  differing  very  essentially  on  other 
great  questions  of  public  policy  from  the  Richmond  authorities. 
In  September,  1862,  appeared  his  letter  to  Mayor  Calhoun,  of 
Atlanta,  Georgia,  upon  the  subject  of  martial  law.  Though 
short,  it  is  one  of  the  ablest  productions  of  his  life.  It  created 
quite  a  sensation  at  Richmond  and  throughout  the  country. 

In  the  summer  of  1863,  Mr.  Stephens  made  his  well-known 
attempts  at  negotiation  with  the  authorities  at  Washington. 
The  ostensible  object  was  the  renewal  of  the  cartel  for  the  ex 
change  of  prisoners,  which  was  then  suspended.  But  it  is 
generally  understood,  that  he  had  objects  ulterior  to  this.  That 
in  the  discussions  growing  out  of  the  exchange  of  prisoners, 
the  field  might  be  opened  up  for  a  general  review  of  the  nature, 
aims,  and  objects  of  the  war,  which  might  elicit  something,  at 
least,  which  might  form  the  basis  of  a  settlement  of  the  points 
in  controversy  between  the  States,  without  the  further  effusion 
of  blood.  The  principle  to  which  he  looked  as  the  basis  of 
such  an  adjustment,  was  the  acknowledgment  of  the  ultimate 
sovereignty  of  the  separate  States  under  our  system  of  govern 
ment. 

The  time  he  made  the  proffer  of  his  services  with  this  view, 
was  not  long  after  the  great  victory  of  General  Lee  at  Chan- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHEN'S.  171 

vjellorsville,  when  there  were  strong  indications  of  a  general 
peace  feeling  at  the  North.  The  time  for  such  an  overture  he 
then  thought  propitious.  The  time  when  he  was  sent  on  the 
mission,  was  after  General  Lee  had  removed  his  army  into  Penn 
sylvania,  and  just  before  the  fall  of  Vicksburg.  The  attempted 
mission  at  that  time  he  thought  inopportune,  but  undertook 
it.  The  result  is  history.  The  battle  of  Gettysburg  occurred 
before  he  reached  Newport  News.  After  some  detention,  he 
was  refused  permission  to  proceed  to  Washington.  He  returned 
to  Georgia. 

>  It  was  generally  known,  from  an  early  period  of  the  war, 
that  Mr.  Stephens  differed  from  the  policy  on  which  it  was  con 
ducted,  no  less  than  he  had  done  from  that  which  inaugurated 
it.  His  own  opinions  on  these  points  were  uniformly  main 
tained  by  him  with  perfect  frankness  and  manliness,  in  his 
communications  with  the  Confederate  authorities,  who  were 
completely  possessed  of  his  views,  and  in  all  oral  and  written 
expressions  of  opinion  during  the  progress  of  the  war.  It  is 
important  to  remark,  however,  that  he  never  allowed  his  own 
opinions  to  lead  him  into  the  organization  of  a  party  oppo 
sition,  for  he  believed,  and  often  said,  that  such  an  opposi 
tion  would  be  -productive  of  mischief,  and  that  the  only  mode 
of  effecting  any  salutary  change  of  measures,  was  by  impres 
sing  sound  and  true  views  upon  those  who  had  official  charge 
of  the  cause.  Hence  he  always  maintained  friendly  relations 
with  all  those  in  public  authority ;  and  when  convinced  that 
they  could  not  be  induced  to  carry  out  his  views  concerning 
vital  points,  he  withdrew  himself  as  much  as  possible  from  par 
ticipating  in  the  administration  of  a  policy  which  he  did  not 
approve.  To  give  some  insight  into  his  peculiar  views,  we 
deem  it  proper  to  publish  some  of  his  written  expressions  of 
them  contemporaneous  with  the  events  and  policy  to  which 
they  relate ;  and  for  this  purpose,  and  this  only,  we  are  per 
mitted  to  give  to  the  public,  for  the  first  time,  the  two  following 
communications.  The  first  of  these  will  be  better  understood 


172  ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS. 

from  preceding  it  with  the  letter  to  which  it  is  a  reply.  This 
preceding  letter  is  therefore  also  given,  but  the  name  of  the 
author  is  omitted. 

"August  2ith,  1863. 

"HoN.  A.  H.  STEPHENS. 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR  : — I  have  many  misgivings  as  to  the  propriety 
of  troubling  you  with  a  letter,  because  I  am  aware  that  your 
public  duties  require  the  whole  of  your  attention  ;  but,  as  the 
situation  of  the  country  demands  the  aid  of  every  faithful  man  in 
it,  perhaps  you  will  not  deem  it  altogether  improper  in  me  to 
submit  some  reflections  to  your  consideration.  You  will  under 
stand  me,  in  all  that  I  may  say,  to  be  the  unflinching  friend  and 
supporter  of  the  administration  and  i-ts  policy  ;  so  much  so,  that 
my  personal  service,  as  we'll  as  my  fortune,  are  at  the  disposal 
of  the  government,  to  be  used  in  any  way  that  will  best  promote 
the  interest  of  the  country.  To  be  more  explicit,  I  have  from  the 
beginning  approved  heartily  of  the  election  of  President  Davis  and 
yourself,  as  the  first  and  second  officers  of  the  government ;  and 
believe  that  the  resources  of  the  country  could  not  have  been  better 
employed,  in  its  defence,  than  they  have  been.  I  declare  myself 
ready  to  go  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  encounter  any  hazard, 
in  order  to  serve  the  country.  Nothing  would  gratify  me  more 
than  to  be  charged  with  despatches  to  our  foreign  agents,  for  I 
am  of  opinion — pardon  the  presumption — that  I  could  be  of  some 
benefit  to  the  country,  were  I  in  Europe. 

"But,  to  the  principal  object  of  this  letter — the  plan  that  I 
would  suggest.  No  plan  or  scheme  would  be  worthy  of  consider 
ation  that  does  not  look  to  the  present  and  future  condition  of 
the  country.  The  prospect  of  the  country  is  bad  enough,  you  will 
allow,  and  its  future,  I  think,  if  things  are  not  changed,  will  be 
worse.  You  must  not  understand  me  as  being  discouraged  in 
the  slightest  manner  as  to  our  ultimate  success.  On  the  con 
trary,  I  believe  that  there  is  too  much  of  justice  in  our  cause,  for 
God  to  permit  us  to  be  overcome  by  Yankees,  or  others.  The  plan 
is,  first:  let  the  President  be  proclaimed  Dictator  for  a  specified 
length  of  time,  and  the  Vice-President  his  successor,  should  it  be 
come  necessary  Secondly:  Propose  to  England  and  Franco 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  173 

exclusive  commercial  privileges  with  our  country  for  a  given 
number  of  years,  provided  they  will,  by  force  or  otherwise,  pro 
cure  peace  to  be  proclaimed  between  us  and  the  Yankees,  on  the 
basis  of  our  country's  independence.  I  cannot,  in  submitting  the 
above  plan,  suggest  so  much  as  the  principal  reasons  in  its  favor  ; 
that  can  only  be  done  by  a  personal  interview.  Now,  if  you  deem 
this  plan,  or  any  feature  of  it,  of  sufficient  importance  to  author 
ize  its  discussion,  I  should  be  glad  to  see  you  at  a  place  and  time 
when  it  may  be  convenient.  M  -  would  suit  me  best. 
"  With  high  regard,  I  am  your  friend,  etc.," 


"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  29to  August,  1863. 
"  DEAR  SIR  :  —  Your  letter  of  the  24th  inst.  is  before  me.  I 
should  like  very  much  to  see  you  and  talk  over  some  matters 
alluded  to  in  it  —  such,  for  instance,  as  treaties  with  England  or 
France,  or  both,  on  which  points,  perhaps,  after  an  interchange 
of  views,  we  might  not  disagree  entirely,  and  if  you  could  make 
it  suit  your  convenience  to  come  and  pay  me  a  visit,  I  should  be 
glad  to  see  you.  I  cannot  go  to  M  -  ,  and  indeed  cannot  leave 
home  without  great  inconvenience.  But  you  must  permit  me  to 
say  to  you,  with  perfect  freedom  and  frankness,  that  I  disagree 
with  you  totally  on  almost  every  other  point  in  your  letter.  I 
am  utterly  opposed  to  every  thing  looking  or  tending  to  a  dicta 
torship  in  this  country.  No  language  at  my  command  could  give 
utterance  to  my  inexpressible  repugnance  at  the  very  suggestion 
of  such  a  lamentable  catastrophe  !  There  is  no  man  living  that 
I  would  confide  such  powers  in,  and  not  one  of  the  illustrious 
dead,  whom,  if  now  living,  would  I  so  trust.  Constitutional 
liberty  can  be  achieved  and  secured  only  by  maintaining  and  de 
fending  written  and  well  denned  limitations  on  the  powers  of  all 
who  are  in  authority.  Such  are  the  limitations  in  our  constitu. 
tion.  That  chart  of  our  liberties  was  made  for  war  as  well  as  for 
peace.  Our  first,  chief,  and  controlling  object  in  every  "  plan"  or 
act,  should  be  to  maintain  the  constitution.  Secession  was  re 
sorted  to  as  the  only  means  to  preserve  the  principles  of  the  con 
stitution  inviolate.  Independence,  based  upon  the  recognized 
sovereignty  of  the  separate  States,  is  certainly  a  great  object  with 


174  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

us,  but  even  this  is,  and  should  be,  ever  held  subordinate  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  constitution ;  for  independence  was  resorted 
to  mainly  for  the  purpose,  and  with  the  view  to  secure  our  rights 
under  the  constitution.  Nothing  could  be  more  unwise  than  for 
any  free  people,  at  any  time,  under  any  circumstances,  to  give  up 
their  rights  under  the  vain  hope  and  miserable  delusion  that  they 
might  thereby  be  enabled  to  defend  them. 

"  In  a  like  spirit  of  frankness,  you  will  pardon  me  for  saying 
that  I  do  not  agree  with  you  in  the  belief  that  the  resources  of 
the  country  could  not  have  been  better  employed  in  its  defence 
than  they  have  been.  It  is  not  my  purpose  now,  or  at  any  time, 
to  arraign  the  policy  of  the  administration.  I  doubt  not  those 
at  the  head  of  our  affairs  are,  and  have  been,  actuated  in  what 
they  are  doing  and  have  done,  by  the  most  patriotic  motives.  I 
mean  only  to  express  to  you  my  dissent  from  your  hearty 
approval  of  that  policy.  On  the  contrary,  that  policy  does  not 
meet  with  my  approval,  as  developed,  either  in  the  military, 
financial,  legislative,  or  diplomatic  departments  of  government. 
Its  conscription,  its  ignoring  State  sovereignty  and  the  rights  of 
the  citizen  soldiers  in  the  appointment  of  officers,  its  impress 
ments  and  seizures,  its  system  of  passports  and  provost-marshals 
— its  continued  issues  of  paper  money,  without  timely  taxation 
or  other  steps  to  prevent  depreciation,  and  its  utter  neglect  of 
cotton,  our  greatest  element  of  power,  when  it  could  have  been 
of  incalculable  value  to  us — to  say  nothing  of  other  matters — are 
all  wrong,  radically  wrong  in  my  judgment,  both  in  principle  and 
policy.  Under  this  general  sj^stem  it  will  with  us  be  a  simple 
question  of  how  much  political  quackery  we  have  strength  of 
constitution  to  bear  and  yet  survive.  But  again  I  must  ask  you 
to  excuse  the  freedom  with  which  I  speak.  It  is-  with  the  same 
frankness  with  which  you  wrote,  and  I  trust  you  will  receive  it 
in  the  same  spirit.  Neither  my  time  nor  space  will  allow  me  to 
say  any  more,  except  to  repeat,  in  conclusion,  that  I  should  be 
glad  to  see  you  at  my  house  if  you  can  come. 

"Yours,  most  respectfully,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

The  other  communication  referred  to,  is  a  letter  written  by 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  175 

Mr.  Stephens  to  Professor  Kichard  M.  Johnson,  of  the  Rockby 
Institute,  Hancock  county,  Georgia ;  and  it  gives  still  further 
glimpses  into  the  inner  man,  and  his  most  private  feelings' and 
views  at  this  time,  (as  well  as  through  the  whole  scenes  of  the 
past  five  years,)  which  throw  much  light  upon  his  public  con 
duct  during  that  period.  The  letter  was  written  on  the  6th 
day  of  November,  1863.  It  is  a  very  long  one,  and  we  give  only 
such  parts  of  it  as  are  pertinent  to  our  present  object,  omitting 
names  therein  mentioned. 

After  copying  a  private  letter  which  he  had  written  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1861,  the  day  previous  to  the  election  of  mem 
bers  to  the  secession  convention  of  the  State,  and  which  letter 
was  on  the  same  line  as  his  speech  of  November  14th,  1861, 
at  Milledgeville,  Mr.  Stephens,  in  his  letter  to  Professor  John 
ston,  proceeds  as  follows : 

"  From  that  you  can  form  some  general  ideas  of  my  views  and 
feelings  about  secession  at  the  beginning.  My  opinions  have  un 
dergone  no  material  change  since.  Sometimes  I  have  seen  gleams 
of  hope,  which  at  other  times  have  been  clouded  and  darkened 
again.  I  yielded  to  it,  wishing  and  desiring,  and  using  the 
utmost  of  my  exertions  for  the  best,  while  all  along  I  have  been 
and  am  still  prepared  for  the  worst.  The  greatest  difficulty  I 
apprehended  at  the  first,  was  the  want  of  men  of  the  right  stamp, 
men  of  intellect,  ability,  integrity,  purity,  patriotism,  and  states 
manship.  This,  I  think,  is  the  greatest  difficulty  with  us  now. 
We  have  resources  in  abundance,  if  properly  wielded,  to  achieve, 
secure,  and  establish  independence.  I  have  had,  and  now  have, 
no  fears  or  apprehensions  on  that  score.  We  are  very  far  from 
being  conquered  yet.  It  is  true  our  reverses  have  been  severe 
and  great  of  late.  But  we  have  not  yet  been  struck  in  any  vital 
part.  I  looked  for  the  invasion  of  our  country.  The  superior 
numbers  of  the  enemy  made  this  almost  certain.  But  invasions, 
while  they  do  great  harm,  destroy  vast  amounts  of  property,  and 
cause  a  vast  deal  of  suffering,  do  but  little  toward  conquering  a 
people  who  are  determined  never  to  submit.  I  am  not  at  all, 


176  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

therefore,  disheartened — more  so,  I  mean,  than  I  was  at  the 
beginning,  because  of  the  late  inroads  of  the  enemy.  I  shall  not 
be,  even  if  their  armies  penetrate  and  pass  through  Georgia, 
Alabama,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  and  Virginia,  as  they 
have  done  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Mississippi.  We  have 
not  yet  reached  the  period  that  tries  men's  souls — that  ordeal  is 
still  ahead  of  us.  Other  matters  give  me  more  concern  than  the 
fall  of  Yicksburg,  or  the  repulse  at  Gettysburg.  One  of  these  is 
a  growing  disposition  amongst  the  people  to  disregard  princi 
ples,  to  forget  or  pay  no  attention  to  the  landmarks  of  public 
liberty.  The  idea  is  beginning  to  prevail,  that  the  constitution 
is  nothing.  Some  go  further,  and  intimate  that  we  are  in  need 
of  a  stronger  government.  Now,  this  causes  me  more  apprehen 
sion  than  all  other  things  combined."  *  *  * 

In  reply  to  a  previous  inquiry  about  the  writer  of  the  letter 
proposing  a  dictatorship,  which  we  gave  just  before  this,  and 
whether  Mr.  Stephens  thought  there  was  any  regularly  or 
ganized  combination  of  men  in  this  country  for  such  a  purpose, 
he  goes  on  in  the  letter  before  us  to  say : 

"  If  there  is  any,  I  am  not  aware  of  it.  This  is  the  only  com 
munication  that  has  ever  been  made  to  me  upon  the  subject. 
The  writer  is  a  man  of  age,  of  experience,  position,  and  distinc 
tion,  well  known  by  reputation  throughout  the  country,  though 
he  holds  no  official  position.  I  do  not  attach  any  importance  to  it, 
further  than  it  is  a  bare  indication  of  the  public  mind.  Man  is  a 
strange  being.  Opinions  and  sentiments,  like  many  diseases,  are 
epidemic.  As  one  is  affected,  others  are  affected — strangely 
and  mysteriously.  We  cannot  account  for  it.  As  this  man's 
mind  is  running,  other  men's  minds  are  running,  even  without 
any  concert  of  action  or  interchange  of  views  at  first.  I  have 
every  reason  to  believe  he  is  a  clever,  well-disposed  gentleman 
himself  in  his  way.  I  have  no  idea  he  is  in  any  combination.  But 
I  have  heard  such  sentiments  in  so  many  quarters  in  conversa 
tion — not  exactly  the  same,  but  on  the  same  line,  and  tending  to 
a  similar  end — that  I  feel  deep  concern  on  that  point.  Some  of 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  177 

the  newspapers — the  Richmond  Enquirer,  for  instance — have 
openly  proclaimed  sentiments  of  like  character.  This  shows  a 
general  disorder  in  the  public  mind.  What  men  think  about  and 
talk  about,  they  easily  and  readily  get  in  a  condition  to  do,  how 
ever  revolting  it  may  be  to  them  at  first.  So  with  all  errors  poor 
frail  human  nature  is  liable  to.  We  are,  I  assure  you,  sir,  in 
great  danger  on  this  point.  The  North  has  already  run  into 
a  complete  despotism.  This  has  not  disappointed  me ;  and  if  I 
felt  certain,  or  had  assurance  that  we  would  not  pursue  the  same 
course,  I  should  feel  easier  and  less  depressed.  This  has  been 
the  usual  course  and  fate  of  republics.  This  is  what  I  think 
European  powers  are  looking  for  and  expecting.  They  have  no 
real  sympathy  either  for  the  North  or  the  South.  They  are 
rejoiced  to  see  professed  republicans  cutting  each  others'  throats  ; 
and  when  both  sides  are  exhausted  and  reduced  to  despotism, 
which  result  they  are  anxiously  anticipating,  then  they  will 
willingly,  perhaps,  step  in  and  stop  the  further  effusion  of  blood, 
in  exultation  at  the  end  of  the  experiment  of  self-government  by 
man.  Besides  this  feeling,  I  think  England  has  one  collateral 
idea — it  is  not  a  leading  one,  but  one  that  has  some  influence  in 
her  action — and  that  is,  a  desire,  in  the  general  melee  of  the  war, 
that  African  slavery  may  be  so  crippled  as  to  receive  its  death 
blow  in  the  struggle.  *  *  * 
There  is  less  prospect  for  intervention,  or  alliance  with  either 
of  these  powers  (England  and  France)  than  there  was  at  first. 
When  we  organized  the  government  at  Montgomery,  I  was  very 
anxious  to  send  commissioners  immediately  and  directly  to 
Louis  Napoleon.  I  expected  more  from  him  than  from  the 
ministry  in  England.  I  thought  that  he  might  at  that  time  be 
induced  to  form  an  alliance  on  the  basis  of  a  favorable  treaty 
which  would  have  been  mutually  advantageous  to  both  parties. 
But  my  views  did  not  prevail.  The  commissioners  were  sent 
first  to  England,  and  by  the  time  they  got  to  France  they  found 
the  door  closed.  England  had  anticipated  such  an  offer,  and 
had  '  headed  it'  by  herself  entering  into  an  agreement  or  conven 
tion  with  France,  that  these  two  powers  should  act  in  conjunction 
on  the  American  question — that  neither  would  act  without  the 
12 


178  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

other.  And  such  are  still  our  foreign  or  European  relations.  As 
to  '  what  is  to  be  the  end  of  it  ?'  I  do  not  know.  More  depends  upon 
the  virtue  of  our  people  and  wisdom  of  our  rulers  than  upon  any 
thing  else.  All  things  human  are  uncertain.  We  have  a  terrible 
ordeal  before  us.  If  we  can  pass  this  fierj-  crucible  and  come 
out  pure  metal,  all  may  end  well.  Misfortunes,  trials,  and 
adversities,  are  crucibles — terrible  crucibles — which  prove  the 
metal  of  men  singly  and  in  bodies.  Adversity  is  never  negative 
— it  is  always  positive.  It  is  a  tremendous,  active  power.  It 
develops  either  virtue  or  vice  ;  it  ennobles  or  degrades  ;  it  brings 
out  either  good  qualities  or  bad  qualities,  as  they  exist.  It  is  the 
test  of  greatness  of  soul,  or  the  littleness  of  spirit.  This  is 
true  of  the  individual  man,  and  the  aggregation  of  men*.  This 
test  we  have  got  to  stand.  And  while,  as  I  have  said,  I  hope  and 
wish  for  the  best,  I  am  prepared  for  the  worst.  I  have  great 
confidence  in  the  mass  of  our  people,  much  more  than  I  have  in 
their  leaders."  ****** 

In  answer  to  a  question,  "  Do  you  see  no  way  to  end  the 
war,  no  prospect  of  peace  ?"  Mr.  Stephens  goes  on  thus  to 
reply  : — 

"  None  at  all,  none  at  least  that  is  practicable.  There  is  a  way 
for  peace,  easy  and  short,  if  it  could  be  adopted.  It  is  as  simple 
as  the  utterance  of  a  word — and  that  is  the  recognition  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States.  With  this  on  the  part  of  the  northern 
government,  the  troubled  waters  would  instantly  subside.  But  I 
see  no  prospect  for  this.  Indeed,  had  not  that  government  vio 
lated  this'  fundamental  principle  of  American  constitutional 
liberty,  there  would  have  been  no  war.  The  southern  States 
would  have  seceded.  And  if  they  had  found  that  it  was  to  their 
interest  to  remain  to  themselves,  would  have  done  so,  and  ought 
to  have  done  so — and  if  they  liad  found  that  it  was  to  their 
interest  to  be  in  union  with  their  former  confederates  on  the  basis 
of  the  old  compact,  the  reunion  would  have  taken  place  volun 
tarily  and  peaceably,  as  it  was  at  first  effected.  My  own  opinion 
was,  and  still  is,  that  it  vas  better  for  all  the  States  to  remain  in 


ALEXANDER    II.    STEPHENS.  179 

union  under  the  constitution,  each  performing  faithfull}7  its  obliga 
tions  under  that  instrument.  The  only  open  and  avowed  breach 
of  this  was  on  the  part  of  those  northern  States  alluded  to  in  my 
letter  (the  letter  of  1st  January,  1861).  Now  these  States  have, 
or  had,  as  much  interest  in  the  union  as  any  others.  And  if  the 
true  theory  and  principle  of  our  government — the  sovereignty  of 
the  separate  States — had  only  been  acted  on,  these  derelict  States, 
in  my  opinion,  would  soon  have  been  brought  to  a  proper  con 
sideration  of  their  duty  and  obligations.  They  would  have 
changed  their  policy.  They  would  have  returned  to  their  duty. 
The  door  then  would  have  been  opened  for  the  injured  States  to 
adjust  their  relations  with  them  according  to  their  interests,  the 
universal  law  of  national  action.*  If  it  had  been  to  their  interest 
to  reunite,  they  would  have  done  it,  and  if  not,  they  would  not. 
My  opinion  is,  that  it  would  have  been  to  their  interest  to  reunite, 

*  Mr.  Stephens'  idea  here  expressed  does  not  seem  to  have  been  very 
dissimilar  to  the  views  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  his  address  before  the 
Historical  Society  of  New  York,  in  1839.  In  that  address  he  said,  "  With 
these  qualifications  we  may  admit  the  same  right  as  vested  in  the  people 
of  every  State  in  the  Union,  with  reference  to  the  general  government, 
which  was  exercised  by  the  people  of  the  united  colonies  with  reference  to 
the  supreme  head  of  the  British  Empire,  of  which  they  formed  a  part ;  and 
under  these  limitations  have  the  people  of  each  State  in  the  Union  a  right 
to  secede  from  the  Confederated  Union  itself.  Here  stands  the  right.  But 
the  indissoluble  union  between  the  several  States  of  this  confederated  na 
tion  is,  after  all,  not  in  the  right  but  in  the  heart.  If  the  day  should  ever 
come,  (may  heaven  avert  it,)  when  the  affections  of  the  people  of  these 
States  shall  be  alienated  from  each  other ;  when  the  fraternal  spirit  shall 
give  way  to  cold  indifference,  or  collision  of  interest  shall  fester  into  hatred, 
the  bands  of  political  asseveration  will  not  long  hold  together  parties  no 
longer  attached  by  the  magnetism  of  conciliated  interests  and  kindly 
sympathies  ;  and  far  better  will  it  be  for  the  people  of  the  dis-United  States, 
to  part  in  friendship  from  each  other,  than  to  be  held  together  by  con 
straint  ;  then  will  be  the  time  for  reverting  to  the  precedents  which  occurred 
at  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the  constitution,  to  form  again  a  more 
perfect  Union  by  dissolving  that  which  co*uld  no  longer  bind  and  to  leave 
the  separated  parts  to  be  reunited  by  the  law  of  political  gravitation  to  the 
centre." 


180  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

and  all  to  move  on  peaceably  and  harmoniously  as  before.  I  know 
others  differ  from  me  in  this  opinion.  Still  it  is  my  opinion.  And 
if  the  northern  government  would  now  return  to  this  first  princi 
ple — acknowledge  the  sovereignty  of  the  States — the  rights  of  each 
for  itself,  to  determine  its  own  destiny,  freely  and  voluntarily,  the 
war  would  instantly  cease,  and  the  great  law  of  nature  governing 
the  question  of  the  proper  union  of  States,  would  ultimately — 
how  long  first  I  know  not — work  its  results,  whatever  they  might 
be.  But  you  might  as  well  sing  psalms  to  a  dead  horse,  I  fear, 
as  to  preach  such  doctrines  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  those  who  control 
that  government,  at  this  time.  If  we  ever  have  peace  on  this  line, 
it  will  be  when  other  men  are  brought  into  power  there.  Our 
policy  should  be  to  bring  such  men  into  power  there,  if  we  can. 
There  are  such  men  there — State  Rights  and  State  Sovereignty 
men  of  the  Jefferson  school.  One  of  the  greatest  blunders  of  our 
government,  diplomatically,  I  think  has  been  in  not  backing,  aid 
ing,  and  assisting  in  all  ways  possible,  men  of  their  school.  *  *  * 
Now  so  far  from  backing  men  of  this  class,  it  seems  that  our 
government  has  done  all  that  it  could  to  cripple  and  destroy  them 
The  invasion  of  Pennsylvania  and  Morgan's  raid  in  Ohio,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  general  denunciation  and  abuse  of  the  '  Copper 
heads,'  as  they  were  styled,  by  our  leading  papers,  did  more  to 
defeat  the  peace  movement  than  Mr.  Lincoln,  with  all  his  power 
and  influence,  did  or  could  have  done.  The  ghost  that  haunts 
these  men's  brains,  is  the  fear  of  'reconstruction.'  Not  being 
satisfied  to  let  all  things  adjust  themselves,  according  to  nature 
and  the  interests  of  the  people  under  the  principles  of  State 
Rights — State  Sovereignty,  and  the  rights  of  self-government  on 
the  part  of  the  people.  This  has  been  a  great  error,  I  think,  on 
our  side.  The  error,  however,  on  the  other  side,  has  been  vastly 
more  serious.  The  course  of  Mr.  Lincoln  from  the  beginning — 
from  his  inauguration — has  been  at  war  with  every  principle  of 
the  constitution.  He  claims  the  right  to  coerce  seceding  States. 
He  denies  the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  He  ignores  the  founda- 
tion  principle  upon  which  the  wrhole  system  of  government  rests ; 
to  wit,  the  consent  of  the  governed — the  consent  of  the  people  of 
the  States,  acting  in  their  organized  State  character  and  capaci- 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  181 

ties  respectively.  He,  b}*  force  of  arms,  attempts  to  compel  a 
return  to  what  he  calls  allegiance  to  the  constitution.  This,  too, 
in  the  face  of  the  fact  of  the  open  and  avowed  violation  of  their 
constitutional  pledges  on  the  part  of  those  northern  States 
alluded  to,  all  of  which  gave  him  a  cordial  support.  The  Union 
must  be  preserved.  The  South  must  be  forced  back  to  her  con 
stitutional  duty  at  all  costs  and  all  hazards,  but  not  a  word  has 
he  ever  uttered  against  those  northern  States  in  open  rebellion 
against  one  of  the  most  important  provisions  of  the  constitution 
— one  at  least  without  which  it  is  well  known  the  constitution 
could  never  have  been  adopted,  and  the  Union  never  would  have 
been  formed.  He  has  never  even  intimated  a  desire  that  these 
States  should  return  to  their  constitutional  duty  and  allegiance, 
while  all  the  power  of  the  government  is  resorted  to  to  compel 
us  to  do  so.  *  *  *  We  have  fallen  upon  evil  times.  What 
is  to  be  the  end,  I  know  not." ' 

Mr.  Stephens'  address  before  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  March  16th,  1864,  is  one  of  the  great  efforts 
of  his  life,  and  a  full  review  of  some  of  those  executive  and 
congressional  errors  that,  in  his  opinion,  wrecked  and  destroyed 
the  confederate  government.  Our  people  were  literally  "  patient 
of  toil,  serene  amidst  alarms,  inflexible  in  faith,  invincible  in 
arms;"  but  the  ship  of  empire  went  to  pieces  from  the  unskilful- 
ness  of  the  pilots.  We  give  the  closing  words  of  that  oration : — 

"  What  fate  or  fortune  awaits  you  or  me,  in  the  contingencies 
of  the  times,  is  unknown  to  us  all.  We  may  meet  again,  or  we 
may  not.  But  as  a  parting  remembrance,  a  lasting  memento,  to 
be  engraven  on  your  memories  and  your  hearts,  I  warn  you 
against  that  most  insidious  enemy  which  approaches  with  her 
syren  song,  '  independence  first,  and  liberty  afterward.'  It  is  a 
fatal  delusion.  Liberty  is  the  animating  spirit,  the  soul  of  our 
system  of  government ;  and  like  the  soul  of  man,  when  once  lost 
it  is  lost  forever.  There  is  for  it  no  redemption,  except  through 
blood.  Never  for  a  moment  permit  yoursel\;es  to  look  upon  lib 
erty,  that  constitu  ional  liberty  which  you  inherited  as  a  birth- 


182  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

right,  as  subordinate  to  independence.  The  one  was  resorted  to, 
to  secure  the  other.  Let  them  ever  be  held  and  cherished  as 
objects  co-ordinate,  co-existent,  co-equal,  coeval,  and  forever  in 
separable.  Let  them  stand  together  '  through  weal  and  through 
woe.'  and  if  such  be  our  fate,  let  them  and  us  all  go  down 
together  in  a  common  ruin.  Without  libert}^  I  would  not  turn 
upon  my  heel  for  independence.  I  scorn  all  independence  which 
does  not  secure  liberty.  I  warn  you  also  against  another  fatal 
delusion,  commonly  dressed  up  in  the  fascinating  language  of, 
'  if  we  are  to  have  a  master,  who  would  not  prefer  to  have  a 
southern  one  to  a  northern  one  ?'  Use  no  such  language.  Coun 
tenance  none  such.  Evil  communications  are  as  corrupting  in 
politics  as  in  morals. 

"  '  Yice  is  a  monster  of  such  hideous  mien, 
That  to  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  seen. 
But  seen  too  oft,  familiar  with  her  face, 
We  first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace.' 

"  I  would  not  turn  upon  my  heel  to  choose  between  masters.  I 
was  not  born  to  acknowledge  a  master  from  either  the  North  or 
South.  I  shall  never  choose  between  candidates  for  that  office. 
I  shall  never  degrade  the  right  of  suffrage  in  such  an  election.  I 
have  no  wish  or  desire  to  live  after  the  degradation  of  my  coun 
try,  and  have  no  intention  to  survive  its  liberties,  if  life  be  the 
necessary  sacrifice  of  their  maintenance  to  the  utmost  of  my 
ability,  to  the  bitter  end.  As  for  myself,  give  me  liberty  as 
secured  in  the  constitution  with  all  its  guarantees,  amongst  which 
is  the  sovereignty  of  Georgia,  or  give  me  death.  This  is  my 
motto  while  living,  and  I  want  no  better  epitaph  when  I  am 
dead. 

"  Senators  and  representatives,  the  honor,  the  rights,  the  dig 
nity,  the  glory  of  Georgia,  are  in  your  hands.  See  to  it  as  faith 
ful  sentinels  upon  the  watchtower,  that  no  harm  or  detriment 
come  to  any  of  those  high  and  sacred  trusts,  while  committed  to 
your  charge." 

Mr.  Stephens  was  bitterly  assailed  by  the  organs  of  the 
Bichmond  government,  for  this  speech.  The  Southern  Con- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  183 

federacy,  a  high-toned  journal,  then  published  in  the  city  of 
Atlanta,  Georgia,  thus  speaks  of  the  manner  and  matter  of  his 
adversaries : 

"  They  will  quite  forget,  in  the  excess  of  their  fine  frenzy,  that 
Mr.  Stephens  is  the  second  individual  in  our  government ;  that  if 
one  man  dies,  he  is  our  chief;  that  he  has  staked  his  all  upon  the 
result,  and  is  as  deep  in  the  mud,  if  we  fail,  as  Mr.  Davis  can  be 
in  the  mire  ;  but  above  all,  will  they  forget  that  he  is  the  wisest 
man  living  to-day  under  the  confederate  sun.  He  is  a  person,  in 
the  first  place,  of  an  enlightened  understanding.  He  adds  to  a 
fine  intellect  by  nature,  the  cultivation  of  earnest  inquiry  and  long- 
experience.  He  has  been  a  brilliant  actor  in  public  affairs,  as  well 
as  a  close  student  in  his  own  library.  His  perceptions  are  clear  ; 
his  vision  far-sighted  ;  his  disposition  temperate.  No  man  but  a 
fool  can  doubt  the  loyalty  of  his  nature  to  fixed  principles,  for,  as 
a  citizen  and  a  statesman,  he  is  a  man  of  integrity.  He  seems  to 
have  made  the  science  of  government  a  system  of  profound  re 
search,  the  good  of  his  people  his  chief  puvpose  ;  and,  since  the 
advent  of  the  revolution,  the  success  of  our  cause  the  aim  of  his 
existence.  Had  his  counsels  prevailed,  we  would  have  had  peace 
this  da}r.  There  is  no  sort  of  question  of  it ;  for  they  w.ould  have 
given  us  an  army  at  the  start,  and  both  a  financial  and  diplomatic 
system  throughout  the  war.  The  modest  bearing,  the  earnest 
truths,  the  calm  good  sense,  the  sagacious  hints,  the  eloquent 
pictures  and  appeals,  which  gleam  among  the  sturd}^  issues  pre 
sented  in  his  late  speech,  cannot  fail  to  find  the  heart  of  all  who 
read  them  ;  and  he  who  rises  from  the  perusal  of  that  document, 
and  has  the  bigotry  to  prate  about  what  is  called  the  '  Georgia 
Platform,'  proclaims  himself  as  unfit  to  enjoy  a  free  country  as 
he  is  to  talk  politics." 

That  speech  was  made  upon  two  sets  of  resolutions  then 
pending  before  the  legislature.  The  one  known  as  the  Habeas 
Corpus  Resolutions,  the  other  as  the  Peace  Resolutions.  They 
were  drawn  up  and  presented  by  Hon.  Linton  Stephens,  and 
although  without  any  consultation  with  his  more  widely 


184  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

known  brother,  show  the  perfect  coincidence  of  thought 
between  them,  as  well  as  his  very  great  ability  as  a  jurist,  legis 
lator,  and  statesman.  The  resolutions  upon  the  Habeas  Corpus, 
upon  which  the  speech  was  mainly  made,  may  well  lay  claim 
to  the  position  in  the  parliamentary  history  of  Georgia,  that 
the  celebrated  resolutions  of  Virginia  in  1798  and  1799  do  in 
the  history  of  that  renowned  commonwealth.  They  are  as 
follows : — 

"  The  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Georgia  do  resolve,  1st. 
That  under  the  constitution  of  the  Confederate  States,  there  is 
no  power  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
but  in  a  manner  and  to  an  extent,  regulated  and  limited  by  the 
express,  emphatic,  and  unqualified  constitutional  prohibitions, 
that  '  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law,'  and  that  'The  right  of  the  people 
to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated  and  no 
warrants  shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath 
or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the  places  to  be 
searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized.'  And  this  con 
clusion  results  from  the  two  following  reasons :  First,  because 
the  power  to  suspend  the  writ,  is  derived  not  from  express  dele 
gation,  but  only  from  implication,  which  must  always  yield  to 
express,  conflicting,  and  restricting  words.  Second,  because  this 
power  being  found  nowhere  in  the  constitution,  but  in  words 
which  are  copied  from  the  original  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  as  adopted  in  1787,  must  yield  in  all  points  of  conflict  to 
the  subsequent  amendments  of  1789,  which  are  also  copied  into 
our  present  constitution,  and  which  contain  the  prohibitions  above 
quoted,  and  were  adopted  with  the  declared  purpose  of  adding 
further  declaratory  and  restrictive  clauses. 

"  2d.  That  '  due  process  of  law'  for  seizing  the  persons  of  the 
people,  as  defined  by  the  constitution  itself,  is  a  warrant  issued 
upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particu 
larly  describing  the  persons  to  be  seized  ;  and  the  issuing  of  such 
warrants,  being  the  exertion  of  a  judicial  power,  is,  if  done  by 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  185 

any  branch  of  the  government  except  the  judiciary,  a  plain  viola 
tion  of  that  provision  of  the  constitution,  which  vests  the  judicial 
power  in  the  courts  alone ;  and,  therefore,  all  seizures  of  the  per 
sons  of  the  people,  by  any  officer  of  the  confederate  government, 
without  warrant,  and  all  warrants  for  that  purpose,  from  any  but 
a  judicial  source,  are,  in  the  judgment  of  this  general  assembly 
unreasonable  and  unconstitutional. 

"  3d.  That  the  recent  act  of  Congress  to  suspend  the  privilege  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  cases  of  arrests  ordered  by  the  Presi 
dent,  Secretary  of  War,  or  general  officer  commanding  the  Trans- 
Mississippi  Military  Department,  is  an  attempt  to  sustain  the 
military  authority  in  the  exercise  of  the  constitutional,  judicial 
function  of  issuing  warrants,  and  to  give  validity  to  unconsti 
tutional  seizures  of  the  persons  of  the  people  ;  and  as  the  said 
Act,  by  its  express  terms,  confines  its  operation  to  the  upholding 
of  this  class  of  unconstitutional  seizures,  the  whole  suspension 
attempted  to  be  authorized  by  it,  and  the  whole  act  itself,  in  the 
judgment  of  this  general  assembly,  are  unconstitutional. 

"4th.  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  general  assembly,  the  said 
Act  is  a  dangerous  assault  upon  the  constitutional  power  of  the 
courts,  and  ijpon  the  liberty  of  the  people,  and  beyond  the  power 
of  any  possible  necessity  to  justify  it;  and  while  our  senators 
and  representatives  in  Congress  are  earnestly  urged  to  take  the 
first  possible  opportunity  to  have  it  repealed,  we  refer  the  ques 
tion  of  its  validity  to  the  courts,  with  the  hope  that  the  people 
and  the  military  authorities  will  abide  by  the  decision. 

"5th.  That  as  constitutional  liberty  is  the  sole  object  which  our 
people  and  our  noble  army  have,  in  our  present  terrible  struggle 
with  the  government  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  so  also  is  a  faithful  adher 
ence  to  it,  on  the  part  of  our  own  government,  through  good 
fortune  in  arms,  and  through  bad,  one  of  the  great  elements  of  our 
strength  and  final  success  ;  because  the  constant  contrast  of  con 
stitutional  government  on  our  part  with  the  usurpations  and 
tyrannies,  which  characterize  the  government  of  our  enemy,  under 
the  ever  recurring  and  ever  false  plea  of  the  necessities  of  war, 
will  have  the  double  effect  of  animating  our  people  with  an  uncon 
querable  zeal,  and  of  inspiring  the  people  of  the  North  more  and 


186  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

more,  with  a  desire  and  determination  to  put  an  end  to  a  contest 
which  is  waged  *by  their  government  openly  against  our  liberty, 
and  as  truly,  but  more  covertly  against  their  own." 

The  peace  resolutions  are  the  same  referred  to  subsequently 
in  the  letter  to  Messrs.  Scott  and  others,  September,  1864 
They  are  as  follows  : 

"  The  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Georgia  do  resolve, 
1st.  That  to  secure  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  'governments  were  instituted  among  men,  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed ;  that  when 
ever  any  form  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right 
of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  gov 
ernment,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organ 
izing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  shall  seem  to  them  most  likely 
to  effect  their  safety,  and  happiness.' 

"  2d.  That  the  best  possible  commentary  upon  this  grand  text 
of  our  fathers  of  1776,  is  their  accompanying  action,  which  it  was 
put  forth  to  justify ;  and  that  action  was  the  immortal  declara 
tion  that  the  former  political  connection  between  the  colonies  and 
the  State  of  Great  Britain  was  dissolved,  and  the  thirteen  colonies 
were,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  not  one  independent  State,  but 
thirteen  independent  States,  each  of  them  being  such  a  '  people' 
as  had  the  right,  whenever  they  chose  to  exercise  it,  to  separate 
themselves  from  a  political  association  and  government  of  their 
former  choice,  and  institute  a  new  government  to  suit  themselves. 

"3d.  That  if  Rhode  Island,  with  her  meagre  elements  of  na 
tionality,  was  such  a  'people'  in  1776,  when  her  separation  from 
the  government  and  people  of  Great  Britain  took  place,  much 
more  was  Georgia,  and  each  of  the  other  seceding  States,  with 
their  large  territories,  populations,  and  resources,  such  a  'people,' 
and  entitled  to  exercise  the  same  right  in  1861,  when  they  de 
clared  their  separation  from  the  government  and  the  people  of 
the  United  States  ;  and  if  the  separation  was  rightful  in  the  first 
case,  it  was  more  clearly  so  in  the  last,  the  right  depending,  as  it 
does  in  the  case  of  every  '  people'  for  whom  it  is  claimed,  simply 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  1ST 

upon   their  fitness  and  their  will  to  constitute  an  independent 
State. 

"  4th.  That  this  right  was  perfect  in  each  of  the  States,  to  be 
exercised  by  her  at  her  own  pleasure,  without  challenge  or  resist 
ance  from  an}'-  other  power  whatsoever ;  and  while  these  South 
ern  States  had  long  had  reason  enough  to  justify  its  assertion 
against  some  of  their  faithless  associates,  yet,  remembering  the 
dictate  of  'prudence,'  that  'governments  long  established  should 
not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient  causes,'  they  forbore  a  re 
sort  to  its  exercise,  until  numbers  of  the  northern  States,  State 
after  State,  through  a  series  of  years,  and  by  studied  legislation, 
had  arrayed  themselves  in  open  hostility  against  an  acknowledged 
provision  of  the  constitution,  and  at  last  succe-eded  in  the  election 
of  a  President  who  was  the  avowed  exponent  and  executioner  of 
their  faithless  designs  against  the  constitutional  rights  of  their 
southern  sisters  ;  rights  which  had  been  often  adjudicated  by  the 
courts,  and  which  were  never  denied  by  the -abolitionists  them 
selves,  but  upon  the  ground  that  the  constitution  itself  was  void 
whenever  it  came  in  conflict  with  a  'higher  law,'  which  they 
could  not  find  among  the  laws  of  God,  and  which  depended  for 
its  exposition  solely  upon  the  elastic  consciences  of  rancorous 
partisans.  The  constitution  thus  broken,  and  deliberately  and 
persistently  repudiated  by  several  of  the  States  who  were  parties 
to  it,  ceased,  according  to  universal  law,  to  be  binding  on  any  of 
the  rest,  and  those  Spates  who  had  been  wronged  by  the  breach 
were  justified  hi  using  their  right  to  provide  'new  guards  for 
their  future  security.' 

"  5th.  That  the  reasons  which  justified  the  separation  when  it 
took  place,  have  been  vindicated  and  enhanced  in  force  by  the 
subsequent  course  of  the  government  of  Mr.  Lincoln — by  his  con 
temptuous  rejection  of  the  confederate  commissioners  who  were 
sent  to  Washington  before  the  war,  to  settle  all  matters  of  differ 
ence  without  a  resort  to  arms ;  thus  evincing  his  determination 
to  have  war — by  his  armed  occupation  of  the  territory  of  the 
Confederate  States — and  especially  by  his  treacherous  attempt 
to  reinforce  his  garrisons  in  their  midst,  after  they  had,  in  pursu 
ance  of  their  right,  withdrawn  their  people  and  territory  from  tha 


188  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

jurisdiction  of  his  government ;  thus  rendering  war  a  necessity, 
and  actually  inaugurating  the  present  lamentable  war — b}^  his 
official  denunciation  of  the  Confederates  States  as  '  rebels'  and 
'disloyal'  States,  for  their  rightful  withdrawal  from  their  faithless 
associate  States,  whilst  no  word  of  censure  has  ever  fallen  from 
him  against  those  faithless  States  who  were  truly  '  disloyal'  to  the 
Union  and  the  constitution,  which  was  the  only  cement  to  the 
Union,  and  who  were  the  true  authors  of  all  the  wrong  and  all 
the  mischief  of  the  separation,  thus  insulting  the  innocent  by 
charging  upon-  them  the  crimes  of  his  own  guilty  allies — and 
finally,  by  his  monstrous  usurpations  of  power  and  undisguised 
repudiation  of  the  constitution,  and  his  mocking  scheme  of  secur 
ing  a  republican  form  of  government  to  sovereign  States  by 
putting  nine  tenths  of  the  people  under  the  dominion  of  one  tenth, 
who  may  be  abject  enough  to  swear  allegiance  to  his  usurpation, 
thus  betraying  his  design  to  subvert  true  constitutional  republi 
canism  in  the  North  as  well  as  the  South. 

"  6th.  That  while  we  regard  the  present  war  between  these 
Confederate  States  and  the  United  States  as  a  huge  crime,  whose 
beginning  and  continuance  are  justly  chargeable  to  the  govern 
ment  of  our  enemy,  yet  we  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that,  if  our 
own  government,  and  the  people  of  both  governments,  would  avoid 
all  participation  in  the  guilt  of  its  continuance,  it  becomes  all  of 
them,  on  all  proper  occasions,  and  in  all  proper  ways — the 
people  acting  through  their  State  organizations  and  popular 
assemblies,  and  our  government  through  its  appropriate  depart 
ments — to  use  their  earnest  efforts  to  put  an  end  to  this  unnatural, 
unchristian,  and  savage  work  of  carnage  and  havoc.  And  to 
this  end  we  earnestly  recommend  that  our  government,  imme 
diately  after  signal  successes  of  our  arms,  and  on  other  occa 
sions,  wher^  none  can  impute  its  action  to  alarm,  instead  of  a 
sincere  desire  for  peace,  shall  make  to  the  government  of  our 
enemy  an  official  offer  of  peace,  on  the  basis  of  the  great  prin 
ciple  declared  by  our  common  fathers  in  1776,  accompanied  by 
the  distinct  expression  of  a  willingness  on  our  part  to  follow 
that  principle  to  its  true  logical  consequences,  by  agreeing  that 
any  border  State,  whose  preference  for  our  association  may  be 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  189 

doubted  (doubts  having  been  expressed  as  to  the  wishes  of  the 
border  States),  shall  settle  the  question  for  herself,  by  .a  conven 
tion  to  be  elected  for  that  purpose,  after  the  withdrawal  of  all 
inilitaiy  forces,  of  both  sides,  from  her  limits. 

"  tth.  That  we  believe  this  course,  on  the  part  of  our  govern 
ment,  would  constantly  weaken,  and  sooner  or  later  break  down 
the  war  power  of  our  enemy,  by  showing  to  his  people  the  jus 
tice  of  our  cause,  our  willingness  to  make  peace  on  the  principles 
of  17 16,  and  the  shoulders  on  which  rests  the  responsibility  for 
the  continuance  of  the  unnatural  strife ;  that  it  would  be  hailed 
by  our  people  and  citizen-soldiery,  who  are  bearing  the  brunt  of 
the  war,  as  an  assurance  that  peace  will  not  be  unnecessarily 
delayed,  nor  their  sufferings  unnecessarily  prolonged  ;  and  that 
it  would  be  regretted  lay  nobody,  on  either  side,  except  men 
whose  importance  or  whose  gains  would  be  diminished  by  peace, 
and  men  whose  ambitious  designs  would  need  cover  under  the 
ever-recurring  plea  of  the  necessities  of  war. 

"  8th.  That  while  the  foregoing  is  an  expression  of  the  senti 
ments  of  this  general  assembly  respecting  the  manner  in  which 
peace  should  be  sought,  we  renew  our  pledges  of  the  resources 
and  power  of  this  State  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  defensive 
on  our  part,  until  peace  is  obtained  upon  just  and  honorable 
terms,  and  until  the  independence  and  nationality  of  the  Confed 
erate  States  is  established  upon  a  permanent  and  enduring  basis." 

These  resolutions,  as  we  have  said,  were  drawn  up  and  sub 
mitted  to  the  legislature  by  Hon.  Linton  Stephens,  then  mem 
ber  of  that  body,  without  any  concert  with  his  brother. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  however,  that  the  last  one  was  not 
in  the  original  series  proposed  and  presented  by  him.  It  was 
offered  as  an  amendment. to  his,  and  adopted  by  the  House. 

There  is  something  so  remarkable  about  these  two  brothers, 
that  we  may  be  indulged  in  a  short  digression  on  the  subject. 
In  their  physical  development,  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace 
of  resemblance,  nor  any  in  their  temperaments ;  yet  their 
mental  constitutions  seem  to  be  of  the  same  type,  while  their 
inner  souls  have  a  congeniality  and  affinity  rarely  to  be  met 


190  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

•with.  The  elder,  Alexander,  eleven  years  the  senior,  became 
the  guardian  of  the  junior,  Linton,  in  1837.  On  taking  control 
of  his  education,  he  put  him  at  once  under  one  of  the  ablest 
instructors  in  this  State.  That  younger  brother  was  fitted  for 
college  in  1839,  and  entered  the  Freshmen  class  in  the  State 
University  in  August)  of  that  year.  He  graduated  in  1843, 
with  the  first  honor  in  his  class.  He  then  went  to  the  Univer 
sity  of  Virginia,  where  he  took  a  regular  course  in  the  law 
department,  and  after  that  went  to  Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 
to  complete  his  law  studies  under  Judge  Story.  Upon  the  death 
of  that  distinguished  jurist,  he  quitted  that  institution  and 
returned  to  Georgia,  where  he  commenced  the  practice  of  law. 
Soon  he  arose  to  the  highest  distinction.  In  1859,  he  was 
placed  upon  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia,  at  the 
age  of  thirty-five.  This  position  he  held  with  great  distinction, 
until  he  voluntarily  resigned  it  some  years  afterward. 

Before  going  upon  the  bench,  and  since,  he  has  several  times 
been  a  member  of  the  State  legislature.  Both  the  brothers 
were  distinguished  at  college  for  their  scholarship.  Both  upon 
entering  life  soon  became  distinguished,  as  lawyers,  orators  and 
statesmen  of  a  high  order.  Both  are  noted  for  their  generous 
liberality,  especially  in  aiding  young  men  in  procuring  an  edu 
cation.  But  besides  this,  the  fact  to  which  we  allude  espec 
ially,  is  the  singular  and  extraordinary  attachment  and  devotion 
to  each  other  which  has  ever  'existed  between  them  as  brothers. 
They  are  always  together  when  they  can  be.  When  separated, 
hardly  a  mail  has  passed  since  1843,  up  to  the  imprisonment 
of  the  elder,  without  letters  passing  between  them. 

So  soon  as  permission  was  given  to  the  junior  by  President 
Johnson,  he  visited  the  elder  in  Fort  Warren,  and  remained  a 
voluntary  prisoner  with  him  until  his  release.  This  personal 
devotion  between  them  has  its  parallel  in  history  only  in  the 
case  of  Marcus  and  Quintus  Cicero. 

But  to  return  to  the  matter  we  were  on : — While  Mr. 
Stephens'  speech  against  the  suspension  of  habeas  corpus  received 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS.  191 

marked  approbation  from  the  press  generally,  and  the  princi 
ples  of  it  were  indorsed  by  several  State  legislatures,  and  cor 
dially  hailed  by  the  great  mass  of  the  people ;  yet  there  were 
efforts  made,  more  in  private  than  in  public  circles,  to  break 
the  influence  of  it  by  representing  it  as  having  emanated  from 
nothing  but  hostility  to  the  administration. 

How  Mr.  Stephens  received  and  was  affected  by  these  will 
be  seen  from  two  private  letters,  which  we  are  permitted  to 
publish.  One  of  them  was  written  to  Hon.  James  A.  Seddon, 
Secretary  of  War  ;  and  the  other  to  Hon.  Herschel  Y.  Johnson, 
Senator  in  Congress.  They  both  appear  in  their  proper  places 
in  this  collection.  In  the  month  of  September,  1864,  appeared 
his  well-known  letter  to  Messrs.  Scott  and  others,  upon  the 
subject  of  inaugurating  some  movement  in  favor  of  peace. 
This  letter  we  here  give  in  full : 

"  CRAWFORD VILLE,  GEORGIA,  22d  September,  1864. 
"  Messrs.  ISAAC  SCOTT,  J.  B.  Ross,  J.  H.  R.  WASHINGTON, 

Macon,  Georgia. 

11  GENTLEMEN  : — You  will  please  excuse  me  for  not  answering 
your  letter  of  the  14th  inst.  sooner.  I  have  been  absent  nearly  a 
week  on  a  visit  to  my  brother,  in  Sparta,  who  has  been  quite  out 
of  health  for  some  time.  Your  letter  I  found  here  on  my  return 
home  yesterday.  The  delay  of  my  reply  thus  occasioned,  I  regret. 
Without  further  explanation  or  apology,  allow  me  now  to  say  to 
you,  that  no  person  living  can  possibly  feel  a  more  ardent  desire 
for  an  end  to  be  put  to  this  unnatural  and  merciless  war,  upon 
honorable  and  just  terms,  than  I  do.  But  I  really  do  not  see 
that  it  is  in  my  power,  or  yours,  or  that  of  any  number  of  persons 
in  our  position,  to  inaugurate  any  movement  that  will  even  tend 
to  aid  in  bringing  about  a  result  that  we  and  so  many  more  so 
much  desire.  The  movement  by  our  legislature  at  its  last  session, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  Executive,  on  this  subject,  was  by  au 
thority  properly  constituted  for  such  a  purpose.  That  move 
ment,  in  my  judgment,  was  timely,  judicious,  and  in  the  right 
direction.  Nor  has  it  been  without  results.  The  organization 


192  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

of  that  party  at  the  North,  to  which   you  refer,  may  justly  be 
claimed  as  a  part  of  the  fruits  of  it.     These,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
will  be  followed  by  others  of  a  more  marked  character,  if  all,  in 
both  sections,  who  sincerely  desire  peace  upon  correct  terms  will 
give  that  movement  thus  inaugurated  all  the  aid  in  their  power. 
The  resolutions  of  the  Georgia  legislature,  at  its  last  session, 
upon  the  subject  of  'peace,  in  my  judgment,  embodied  and  set 
forth  very  clearly  those  principles  upon  which  alone  there  can  be 
permanent  peace  between  the  different  sections  of  this  extensive, 
once  happy  and  prosperous,  but  now  distracted  country.  The  easy 
and  perfect  solution  to  all  our  present  troubles,  and  those  far  more 
grievous  ones  which  loom  up  in  prospect,  and  portentously  threaten 
in  the  coming  future,  is  nothing  more  than  the  simple  recognition 
of  the  fundamental  principle  and  truth  upon  which  all  American 
constitutional  liberty  is  founded   and  upon  the  maintenance  of 
which  alone  it  can  be  preserved ;  that  is,  the  sovereignt}^ — the  ul 
timate,  absolute  sovereignty — of  the  States.     This  doctrine  our 
legislature  announced  to  the  people  of  the  North,  and  to  the  world 
It  is  the  only  key-note  to  peace — permanent,  lasting  peace — con 
sistent  with  the  security  of  public  liberty.    The  old  confederation 
was  formed  upon  this  principle.     The  old  Union  was  afterward 
formed  upon  this  principle ;  and  no  union  or  league  can  ever  be 
formed  or  maintained  between  any  States,  North  or  South,  secur 
ing  public  liberty  upon  any  other  principle.     The  whole  frame 
work  of  American  institutions,  which  in  so  short  a  time  had  won 
the  admiration  of  the  world,  and  to  which  we  were  indebted  for 
such  an   unparalleled  career  of  prosperity  and  happiness,  was 
formed  upon  this  principle.     All  our  present  troubles  spring  from 
a  departure  from  this  principle,  from  a  violation  of  this  essential, 
vital  law  of  our  political  organism.     In  17  f  6,  our  ancestors,  and 
the  ancestors  of  those  who  are  waging  this  unholy  crusade  against 
us,  together  proclaimed   the   great   and    eternal   truth,  for  the 
maintenance  of  which  they  jointly  pledged  their  lives,  their  for 
tunes,  and  their  sacred  honor,  that  '  governments  are  instituted 
amongst  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed  ;'  and  that  '  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes 
destructive  of  those  ends  (those  for  which  it  was  formed),  it  is  the 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  193 

right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new 
government,  lying  its  foundations  on  such  principles,  and  orga 
nizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely 
to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness.' 

"  It  is  needless  here  to  state,  that,  by  '  people'  and  '  governed,' 
in  this  annunciation,  is  meant  communities  and  bodies  of  men 
capable  of  organizing  and  maintaining  government,  not  individual 
members  of  society.  '  The  consent  of  the  governed'  refers  to  the 
will  of  the  mass  of  the  community  or  State  in  its  organized  form, 
and  expressed  through  its  legitimate  and  properly  constituted 
organs.'  It  was  upon  this  principle  the  colonies  stood  justified 
before  the  world  in  effecting  a  separation  from  the  mother  coun 
try.  It  was  upon  this  principle  that  the  original  thirteen  co-equal 
and  co-sovereign  States  formed  the  Federal  compact  of  the  old 
Union  in  1787.  It  is  upon  the  same  principle  that  the  present  co 
equal  and  co-sovereign  States  of  our  Confederacy  formed  their  new 
compact  of  union.  The  idea  that  the  old  Union,  or  any  union 
between  any  of  these  sovereign  States,  consistently  with  this  fun 
damental  truth,  can  be  maintained  by  force,  is  preposterous. 
This  war  springs  from  an  attempt  to  do  this  preposterous  thing. 
Superior  power  may  compel  a  union  of  some  sort ;  but  it  would 
not  be  the  Union  of  the  old  constitution  or  of  our  new ;  it  would 
be  that  sort  of  union  that  results  from  despotism.  The  subjuga 
tion  of  the  people  of  the  South  by  the  people  of  the  North,  would 
necessarily  involve  the  destruction  of  the  constitution,  and  the 
overthrow  of  their  liberties  as  well  as  ours.  The  men  or  party  at 
the  North,  to  whom  you  refer,  who  favor  peace,  must  be  brought 
to  a  full  realization  of  this  truth  in  all  its  bearings  before  their 
efforts  will  result  in  much  practical  good ;  for  any  peace  growing 
out  of  a  Union  of  the  States  established  by  force,  will  be  as  ruin 
ous  to  them  as  to  us. 

"  The  action  of  the  Chicago  Convention,  so  far  as  its  platform 
of  principles  goes,  presents,  as  I  have  said  on  another  occasion, 
1  a  ray  of  light,  which,  under  Providence,  may  prove  the  dawn  of 
day  to  this  long  and  cheerless  night.'  The  first  ray  of  real  light 
I  have  seen  from  the  North  since  the  war  began.  This  cheers 
the  heart,  and  toward  it  I  could  almost  have  exclaimed : 
13 


194  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

"  '  Hail,  holy  light — offspring  of  heaven  first-born, 
Or  of  the  Eternal,  co-eternal  beam, 
May  I  express  thee  unblamed,  since  God  is  light  ?' 

"  Indeed,  I  could  quite  so  have  exclaimed,  but  for  the  sad  re 
flection,  that,  whether  it  shall  bring  healing  in  its  beams,  or  be 
lost  in  dark  and  ominous  eclipse  ere  its  good  work  is  done, 
depends  so  much  upon  the  action  of  others  who  may  not  regard 
it  and  view  it  as  I  do.  So,  at  best,  it  is  but  a  ray — a  small 
and  tremulous  ray — enough  only  to  gladden  the  heart  and  quicken 
hope.  The  prominent  and  leading  idea  of  that  convention  seems 
to  have  been  a  desire  to  reach  a  peaceful  adjustment  of  our  present 
difficulties  and  strife  through  the  medium  of  the  convocation  of 
the  States.  They  propose  to  suspend  hostilities  to  see  what  can  be 
done,  if  any  thing,  by  negotiation  of  some  sort.  This  is  one  step  in 
the  right  direction.  To  such  a  convention  of  the  States,  I  should 
have  no  objection,  as  a  peaceful  conference  and  interchange  of 
views  between  equal  and  sovereign  Powers,  just  as  the  convention 
of  1181  was  called  and  assembled.  The  properly  constituted  au 
thorities  at  Washington  and  Richmond,  the  duly  authorized  re 
presentatives  of  the  two  confederacies  of  States  now  at  war  with 
each  other,  might  give  their  assent  to  such  a  proposition.  Good 
might  result  from  it.  It  would  be  an  appeal  on  both  sides  from  the 
sword  to  reason  and  justice.  All  wars,  which  do  not  result  in  the 
extinction  or  extermination  of  one  side  or  the  other,  must  be  ended, 
sooner  or  later,  by  some  sort  of  negotiation.  From  the  discussion 
and  interchange  of  views  in  such  a  convention,  the  history,  as 
well  as  the  true  nature  of  our  institutions,  and  the  relation  of 
the  States  toward  each  other  and  toward  the  Federative  head, 
would  doubtless  be  much  better  understood  generally  than  they 
now  are.  But  I  should  favor  such  a  proposition  only  as  a  peace 
ful  conference,  as  the  convention  of  178T  was.  I  should  be 
opposed  to  leaving  the  questions  at  issue  to  the  absolute  decision 
of,  such  a  body.  Delegates  might  be  clothed  with  powers  to  con 
sult  and  agree,  if  they  could,  upon  some  plan  of  adjustment,  to 
be  submitted  for  subsequent  ratification  by  the  sovereign  States 
whom  it  affected,  before  it  should  be  obligatory  or  binding ;  and 
then  binding  only  on  such  as  should  so  ratify.  It  becomes  the 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  195 

people  of  the  South,  as  well  as  the  people  of  the  Xorth,  to  be 
quite  as  watchful  and  jealous  of  their  rights  as  their  common  an 
cestors  were. 

"  The  maintenance  of  liberty,  in  all  ages,  times,  and  countries, 
when  and  where  it  has  existed,  has  required  not  only  constant 
vigilance  and  jealousy,  but  has  often  required  the  greatest  priva 
tions,  sufferings,  and  sacrifices  that  people  or  States  are  ever 
subjected  to.  Through  such  an  ordeal  we  are  now  passing. 
Through  a  like  and  even  severer  ordeal,  our  ancestors  passed  in 
their  struggle  for  the  principles  which  it  has  devolved  upon  us  to 
defend  and  maintain.  But  great  as  our  sufferings  and  sacrifices 
have  been  and  are,  to  which  you  allude,  they  are  as  yet  far  short 
of  the  like  sufferings  and  sacrifices  which  our  fathers  bore  with 
patience,  and  fortitude,  in  the  crisis  that  '  tried  men's  souls'  in 
their  day.  These  are  the  virtues  that  sustained  them  in  their 
hour  of  need.  Their  illustrious  and  glorious  example  bids  us 
not  to  under-estimate  the  priceless  inheritance  they  achieved  for 
us  at  such  a  cost  of  treasure  and  blood.  Great  as  are  the  odds 
we  are  struggling  against,  they  are  not  greater  than  those  against 
which  they  successfully  struggled.  In  point  of  reverses,  our  con 
dition  is  not  to  be  compared  with  theirs.  Should  Mobile,  Savan 
nah,  Charleston,  Augusta,  Macon,  Montgomery,  and  even  Peters 
burg  and  Richmond  fall,  our  condition  would  not  then  be  worse 
or  less  hopeful  than  theirs  was  in  the  darkest  hour  that  rested  on 
their  fortunes.  With  wisdom  on  the  part  of  those  who  control 
our  destiny,  in  the  cabinet  and  in  the  field,  husbanding  and  properly 
wielding  our  resources  at  their  command,  and  in  securing  the  hearts 
and  affections  of  the  people  in  the  great  cause  of  right  and  lib 
erty  for  which  we  are  struggling,  we  could  suffer  all  these  losses 
and  calamities,  and  greater,  even,  and  still  triumph  in  the  end. 
At  present,  however,  I  do  not  see,  as  I  stated  in  the  outset,  that 
you,  or  I,  or  any  number  of  persons  in  our  position,  can  do  any 
thing  toward  inaugurating  any  new  movement  looking  to  a  peace 
ful  solution  of  the  present  strife.  The  war,  on  our  part,  is  purely 
and  entirely  defensive  in  its  character.  How  long  it  will  con 
tinue  to  be  thus  wickedty  and  mercilessly  waged  against  us, 
depends  upon  the  people  of  the  North.  Georgia,  our  own  State, 


196  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

to  whom  we  owe  allegiance,  has,  with  great  unanimity,  pro 
claimed  the  principles  upon  which  a  just  and  permanent  peace 
ought  to  be  sought  and  obtained.  The  Congress  of  the  Confede 
rate  States  has  followed  with  an  indorsement  of  those  princi 
ples.  All  you,  and  I,  and  others  in  our  position,  therefore,  can 
do  on  that  line  at  this  time,  is,  to  sustain  the  movement  thus 
already  inaugurated,  and,  to  the  utmost  of  our  ability,  to  hold 
up  these  principles  as  the  surest  hope  of  restoring  soundness  to 
the  public  mind  North,  as  the  brazen  serpent  was  held  up  for  the 
healing  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  The  chief  aid  and  encour 
agement  we  can  give  the  peace  party  at  the  North,  is  to  keep 
before  them  these  great  fundamental  principles  and  truths  which 
alone  will  lead  them  and  us  to  a  permanent  and  lasting  peace, 
with  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  constitutional  liberty. 
With  these  principles  once  recognized,  the  future  would  take 
care  of  itself.  There  would  be  no  more  war  so  long  as  they  should 
be  adhered  to.  All  questions  of  boundaries,  confederacies,  and 
union  or  unions,  would  naturally  and  easily  adjust  themselves 
according  to  the  interests  of  the  parties  and  the  exigencies  of 
the  times.  Herein  lies  the  true  law  of  the  balance  of  power  and 
the  harmony  of  States.  Yours,  respectfully, 

''ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

Subsequently  appeared  his  letter  in  reply  to  a  proposal  for 
a  conference  made  by  General  Sherman,  of  the  United  States 
army,  through  Mr.  William  King.  We  also  give  this  letter 
in  full  in  this  place  : 

"  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  October  1st,  1864. 

-WM.  KING,  ESQ: 

"  SIR  : — I  have  considered  the  message  you  delivered  me  yes 
terday  from  General  Sherman,  with  all  the  seriousness  and 
gravity  due  the  importance  of  the  subject.  That  message  was  a 
verbal  invitation  by  him,  through  you  to  me,  to  visit  him  at 
Atlanta,  to  see  if  we  could  agree  upon  some  plan  of  terminating 
this  fratricidal  war  without  the  further  effusion  of  blood.  The 
object  is  one  which  addresses  itself  with  peculiar  interest  and 
great  force  to  every  well-wisher  of  his  country — to  every  friend 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  197 

of  humanity — to  every  patriot — to  every  one  attached  to  the  prin 
ciples  of  self-government,  established  by  our  common  ancestors. 
I  need  not  assure  you,  therefore,  that  it  is  an  object  very  dear  to 
me — there  is  no  sacrifice  I  would  not  make,  short  of  principle 
and  honor,  to  obtain  it,  and  no  effort  would  I  spare,  under  the 
same  limitations,  with  reasonable  or  probable  prospect  of  success. 
"  But  in  the  present  instance,  the  entire  absence  of  any  power 
on  my  part  to  enter  into  such  negotiations,  and  the  like  absence 
of  any  such  power  on  his  part,  so  far  as  appears  from  his  mes 
sage,  necessarily  precludes  my  acceptance  of  the  invitation  thus 
tendered.  In  communicating  this  to  General  Sherman,  you  may 
also  say  to  him  that  if  he  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  any  prospect 
of  our  agreeing  upon  terms  of  adjustment  to  be  submitted  to  the 
action  of  our  respective  governments,  even  though  he  has  no 
power  to  act  in  advance  in  the  premises,  and  will  make  this 
known  to  me  in  some  formal  and  authoritative  manner  (being  so 
desirous  for  peace  himself,  as  you  represent  him  to  have 
expressed  himself),  I  would  most  cheerfully  and  willingly,  with 
the  consent  of  our  authorities,  accede  to  his  request  thus  mani 
fested,  and  enter  with  all  the  earnestness  of  my  nature  upon  the 
responsible  and  arduous  task  of  restoring  peace  and  harmony  to 
the  country,  upon  principles  of  honor,  right,  and  justice  to  all 
parties.  This  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  at  all  impossible,  if 
truth  and  reason  should  be  permitted  to  have  their  full  sway. 
"  Yours,  most  respectfully, 

"ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

In  the  winter  of  1864-5,  Mr.  Stephens,  seeing  that  affairs 
were  rapidly  tending  to  a  disastrous  crisis,  and  being  ex 
tremely  desirous  to  do  any  thing  in  his  power  to  avert  or 
ameliorate  the  impending  consummation,  went  again  to  Rich 
mond. 

His  efforts  were  again  directed  with  all  his  energy  to  the 
object  of  procuring  a  radical  and  thorough  change  in  the  gov 
ernment  policy,  internal  and  external.  He  was  invited  by  the 
Senate  to  address  them  on  this  subject  in  secret  sesssion.  He 
did  so,  giving  his  vievs  as  to  the  changes  which  he  deemed 


198  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

essential  in  both  the  internal  and  external  policy.  So  far  as 
related  to  the  States  then  at  war,  his  views  were  presented  in"  a 
series  of  resolutions,  which  will  not  be  found  in  this  collection. 
There  was  a  good  prospect  for  the  adoption  of  these  resolutions, 
substantially  by  both  Houses  of  Congress,  when  the  affair  of 
the  Blair  mission  intervened.  This  produced  a  diversion  from 
his  programme,  and  ended  in  the  celebrated  Hampton  Roads 
conference.  The  part  he  took  in  that  conference  was  prompted 
by  no  expectations,  nor  even  hope  of  procuring  an  immediate 
treaty  of  peace.  He  has  been  often  heard  to  say  that  his  views 
in  consenting  to  take  a  part  in  that  conference,  can  never  be 
fully  understood  without  a  knowledge  of  the  true  objects  con 
templated  by  the  authors  of  that  mission.  These  he  has  never 
disclosed,  and  does  not  yet  feel  himself  at  liberty  to  disclose-  All 
that  can  be  at  present  said  concerning  his  own  object  in«  taking 
a  part  in  it  is,  that  he  had  the  hope  of  possibly  obtaining  an 
armistice  which  would  allow  time  for  the  cooling  of  hot  blood, 
and  serve  as  a  stepping-stone  to  negotiations  for  a  permanent 
peace. 

With  this  hope  on  his  part,  weakened  by  the  Confederate 
disaster  at  Nashville,  and  the  fall  of  Fort  Fisher,  he  yielded 
more  to  pressure  from  others  than  to  his  own  inclination,  and 
more  from  a  fear  that  his  refusal  might  do  harm,  than  from  a 
hope  that  his  acceptance  would  result  in  good.  While  we  are 
on  this  subject,  we  will  remark  that  a  publication  appeared  in 
the  Augusta  Chronicle  and  Sentinel,  and  was  republished  in 
many  other  papers  last  summer,  while  Mr.  Stephens  was  a  pris 
oner,  purporting  to  give  his  version  of  the  Hampton  Roads 
conference.  This  was  without  his  authority  or  knowledge,  and 
caused  him  deep  regret.  The  account  contained  some  truths 
and  many  inaccuracies,  with  the  truths  and  inaccuracies  so 
blended,  as  to  make  a  very  erroneous  impression.  He  desired 
to  ]?  ublish  a  disavowal  of  the  publication  at  the  time,  but  was 
not  permitted.  He  has,  on  several  occasions,  told  to  a  few  par 
ticular  friends,  some  things  that  transpired,  particularly  the 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  199 

agreeableness  of  the  interview,  the  courteous  bearing  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  Mr.  Seward,  and  some  anecdotes  which  were  inter 
changed  ;  but  he  has  always  objected  to  giving  to  the  public 
any  account  whatever  beyond  that  contained  in  the  official  re 
port  of  the  commissioners.  That  report,  he  says,  contains  the 
exact  truth  touching  the  points  embraced  in  it ;  but  the  real 
object  of  that  mission  was  not  embraced  in  it.  This  was  ver 
bally  and  confidentially  communicated,  and  his  own  judgment 
was  against  any  report  at  all  for  publication,  as  he  thought  that 
any  report  which  could  be  made,  would  have  the  effect  of  mis 
leading  the  public  mind  as  to  the  real  objects  of  the  mission. 

But  when  the  objects  of  the  mission  had  failed,  Mr.  Stephens, 
true  to  his  instincts  of  humanity,  brought  up  the  question  of 
the  exchange  of  prisoners.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  he  would  leave 
that  matter  with  General  Grant,  and  authorize  him  to  act  in  the 
matter  as  he  thought  best.  The  commissioners  conferred  with 
General  Grant  on  the  subject,  on  their  return  to  City  Point.  A 
general  exchange  soon  followed.  As  an  evidence  of  the  good 
personal  feeling  existing  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Stephens, 
we  here  also  state  that  in  this  interview,  Mr.  Stephens  made 
application  to  him  for  a  special  exchange  in  behalf  of  a  nephew 
of  his,  then  at  Johnson's  Island.  This  Mr.  Lincoln  readily 
granted,  promising  to  send  the  nephew  to  the  uncle.  This  he 
attended  to  immediately  upon  his  return  to  Washington.  He 
telegraphed  that  the  nephew  should  be  sent  forthwith  to  him. 
He  received  him  cordially,  spoke  of  the  uncle  to  the  nephew  in 
the  kindest  terms,  personally,  and  by  the  latter  sent  to  the  former 
the  letter  of  which  we  give  a  fac-simile  on  the  opposite  page. 
****** 

Mr.  Stephens  also  speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  whole 
course  and  bearing  of  General  Grant  in  all  his  interviews  with 
that  distinguished  officer. 

The  Hampton  Roads  conference,  ending  as  it  did,  and  being 
used  as  it  was,  terminated  all  his  hopes  of  effecting  any  salutary 


200  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

changes  of  policy,  either  internal  or  external,  so  far  as  his  cher 
ished  idea  of  State  sovereignty  was  concerned.  He  gave  up 
all  as  lost,  and  returned  home  to  await  the  general  and  early 
collapse  which  he  saw  was  inevitable.  He  remained  at  home  in 
quiet  and  calm  readiness  to  meet  whatever  might  be  his  own 
personal  fate. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  201 


YIIL 
ARREST    AND    IMPRISONMENT. 

RELEASE  ON  PAROLE — ELECTION  TO  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 
— SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  LEGISLATURE  ON  RECONSTRUCTION, 
22D  FEBRUARY,  1866 — TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECON 
STRUCTION  COMMITTEE — COMMENTS  OF  THE  PUBLIC  PRESS. 

AT  Liberty  Hall,  on  the  llth  of  May,  1865,  the  following      » 
scene  occurred : 

Mr.  Stephens  seeing  an  officer  and  guard  advancing  from  the 
front  gate,  met  him  near  the  door  of  his  private  room,  in  which 
he  then  was.  The  following  dialogue  took  place  : 

OFFICER — Is  this  Mr.  Stephens  ? 

MR.  STEPHENS — It  is. 

OFFICER — (apparently  astonished)  Alexander  H.  Stephens  ? 

MR.  STEPHENS — That  is  my  name. 

OFFICER — I  am  ordered  to  put  you  under  arrest. 

MR.  STEPHENS — Will  you  allow  me  to  see  the  order  ? 

The  officer  produced  a  paper  addressed  to  Captain  Saint,  of 
the  Fourth  Iowa  cavalry,  directing  him  to  arrest  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  and  take  him  to  the  head-quarters  in  Atlanta.  It 
was  from  Major-General  Upton. 

MR.  STEPHENS — I  am  subject  to  your  directions.  How  shall 
we  travel? 

OFFICER — By  the  cars  I  came  in. 

MR.  STEPHENS — Can  I  take  any  baggage  ? 

OFFICER — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  STEPHENS — How  long  can  I  have  to  get  ready  ? 

OFFICER — As  long  as  necessary. 


202  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

The  whole  conduct  and  bearing  of  the  officer  was  exceedingly 
civil  and  courteous. 

A  few  moments  were  taken,  and  the  baggage  being  ready, 
the  party  left  with  the  illustrious  prisoner. 

From  exposure  that  night,  in  travelling  in  the  open  cars,  he 
took  a  violent  cold,  from  which  he  suffered  for  several  days. 
At  Atlanta  he  was  put  on  parole  of  honor  by  General  Upton. 
On  Sunday,  the  14th  of  May,  in  pursuance  of  orders,  he  was 
started,  under  military  escort,  to  Washington  City.  Passing  by 
his  home,  being  still  on  parole,  he  was  permitted  to  stop  and 
provide  himself  with  additional  clothing.  It  being  known  that 
he  was  to  return  on  that  day,  a  large  crowd,  consisting  of  nearly 
all  the  village  people,  and  all  his  household  and  plantation  ser 
vants,  were  assembled  to  take  their  farewell  of  him.  Among 
them  all,  there  were  but  few  dry  eyes  as  the  cars  moved  off 
with  him.  At  Augusta,  he  was  put  under  the  charge  of  Col. 
Pritchard,  who  had  arrested  Mr.  Davis,  and  who  then  had  him 
and  his  party  in  custody.  With  this  party  Mr.  Stephens  re 
mained  until  they  reached  Hampton  Roads,  where,  after  some 
detention,  orders  were  received  for  him  and  Hon.  John  H. 
Eeagen,  who  was  of  Mr.  Davis's  party,  to  be  sent  to  Fort  War 
ren,  in  Boston  harbor,  instead  of  to  Washington. 

Mr.  Stephens'  parole  was  continued  by  all  the  officers  into 
whose  charge  he  fell,  until  he  reached  his  destined  prison.  The 
intercourse  between  him  and  Mr.  Davis,  while  they  were  on  the 
route,  was  free,  friendly,  and  cordial,  as  it  had  always  been,  how 
ever  'much  they  had  disagreed  upon  public  questions.  Mr. 
Stephens  entered  the  prison  at  Fort  Warren  on  the  25th  of 
May.  At  first  he  was  put  into  a  room  rather  below  the  level  of 
the  ground.  Here  the  humidity  and  bad  ventilation  soon 
affected  his  health  very  injuriously.  His  confinement  at  first 
was  close,  with  the  privilege  of  taking  an  hour's  walk  and 
airing  every  day  within  the  grounds  of  the  fort,  under  the  escort 
of  an  officer.  At  first,  also,  he  was  put  upon  soldier's  rations. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  203 

This  diet  not  suiting  him  at  all,  upon  application  he  was  per 
mitted  to  be  supplied^  at  his  own  expense,  by  the  sutler.  His 
health  and  strength  failing  in  the  quarters  first  assigned  him 
he  was  removed  to  others  as  comfortable  as  the  fort  afforded, 
and  as  comfortable  as  he  desired.  He  was  also  given  full  privi 
lege,  by  orders  from  Washington,  to  go  out  and  in  as  he 
pleased,  within  the  grounds  of  the  fort,  without  any  guard, 
between  reveille  and  tattoo.  Books,  pen,  ink,  paper,  and 
newspapers  were  allowed  him  from  the  beginning.  He  speaks 
with  the  kindest  remembrance  of  all  the  officers  and  men  of  the 
army  who  had  any  connection  with  his  custody.  He  also  ex 
presses  warm  gratitude  to  many  of  the  good  people  of  Boston 
for  their  kind  attentions  in  ministering  to  his  prison  wants. 
Having  made  up  his  mind,  even  before  his  arrest,  that  it  was 
best  for  the  southern  people  in  every  point  of  view,  to  accept 
the  results  of  the  war — the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  the  restora 
tion  of  the  Union  under  the  constitution,  with  an  abandonment 
of  their  doctrine  of  secession — he  soon,  after  the  appearance  of 
the  President's  proclamation  of  Amnesty,  made  application  for 
its  benefit ;  or  if  that  should  not  be  granted,  then  for  an  enlarge 
ment  on  bail  or  parole  to  answer  any  criminal  prosecution  which 
might  be  instituted  against  him.  The  parole  was  granted  on 
the  llth  of  October,  1865.  His  entire  imprisonment  was  five 
months  to  a  day.  He  immediately  returned  home,  paying  his 
respects  in  person  to  the  President  in  his  passage  through 
Washington.  He  was  urged  to  allow  his  old  constituents  the 
pleasure  of  returning  him  to  his  former  place  in  Congress,  by  a 
unanimous  vote.  This  he  declined.  Many  also  wished  him  to 
accept  the  office  of  governor.  This  he  also  declined.  Upon 
the  meeting  of  the  legislature,  all  eyes  and  all  hearts  were 
turned  to  him  for  one  of  the  United  States  senators,  to  be 
chosen  by  that  body.  The  following  correspondence  took 
place  upon  that  subject: — 


204  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

Reply  of  Hon.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  to  invitation  to  address 
the  legislature  on  public  affairs. 

"  MILLEDGEVILLE,  GrA.,  January  2%d,  1866. 
"  Messrs.  J.  F.  JOHNSON,  CHAS.  H.  SMITH*  and  others  : 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — Your  note  of  invitation  to  me  to  address  the 
general  assembly  on  the  state  of  the  country,  and  assuring  me 
that  it  is  the  almost  universal  desire  of  the  members  that  I  should 
do  so,  if  consistent  with  my  feelings,  etc.,  was  received  two  days 
ago.  I  have  considered  it  maturely  ;  and  be  assured,  if  I  saw  any 
good  that  could  be  accomplished  by  my  complying  with  your  re 
quest,  I  would  cheerfully  yield  any  personal  reluctance  to  so  gen 
eral  a  wish  of  the  members  of  the  general  assembly,  thus  mani 
fested.  But,  as  it  is,  seeing  no  prospect  of  effecting  any  good  by 
such  an  address,  you  and  your  associates  will,  I  trust,  excuse  me 
ink  declining.  My  reasons  need  not  be  stated ;  they  will  readily 
suggest  themselves  to  your  own  minds  upon  reflection. 

"In  reference  to  the  subject  of  the  election  of  United  States 
senators,  which  is  now  before  you,  allow  me  to  avail  myself  of 
this  occasion  to  say  to  you,  and  through  you  to  all  the  members 
of  the  general  assembly,  that  I  cannot  give  my  consent  to  the 
use  of  my  name  in  that  connection.  This  inhibition  of  such  use 
of  it  is  explicit  and  emphatic.  I  wish  it  so  understood  by  all. 
As  willingly  as  I  would  yield  my  own  contrary  inclinations  to 
what  I  am  assured  is  the  general  and  unanimous  wish  of  the 
legislature  in  this  respect,  if  I  saw  any  prospect  of  my  being 
able,  by  thus  yielding,  to  render  any  essential  service  to  the  peo 
ple  of  Georgia ;  and  as  earnestly  desirous  as  I  am  for  a  speedy 
restoration  of  civil  law,  perfect  peace,  harmony,  and  prosperity 
throughout  the  whole  country  ;  yet,  under  existing  circumstances, 
I  do  not  see  such  prospect  of  the  availability  of  my  services  to 
these  ends  in  any  public  position.  Moreover,  so  far  as  I  am 
personally  concerned,  I  do  not  think  it  proper  or  politic  that  the 
election  should  be  postponed  with  any  view  to  a  probable  change 
of  present  circumstances,  or  a  probable  change  of  my  position 
on  the  subject;  and  I  do  trust  that  no  member  will  give  even  a 
complimentary  vote  to  me  in  the  election. 

"  Yours,  truly,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

*  Bill  Arp. 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  205 

Neither  the  people  nor  representatives  Avere  satisfied  with 
this,  and  the  popular  will  at  length  took  this  shape,  and  had.ita 
result. 

"  MILLEDGEVILLE,  January  29£/i,  1866. 
"  HON.  A.  H.  STEPHENS  : 

"  ESTEEMED  SIR: — We  have  read  with  deep  regret  your  letter 
to  the  legislature,  withholding  the  use  of  your  name  in  connection 
with  the  senatorial  canvass  ;  but  while  we  grant  to  you  the  right 
of  refusing  a  candidacy  for  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  claim  to  have  also  the  right  to  bestow 
upon  you  this  trust,  involving,  as  it  does,  important  considerations. 
We  feel,  sir,  that  a  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  are 
looking  to  you  as  the  man  for  the  crisis.  As  the  representatives 
of  that  constituency,  desirous  to  carry  out  this  manifest  demon 
stration  of  the  public  will,  we  now  ask,  will  you  serve  if  elected  ? 
"  H.  R.  CASEY,  BEN.  B.  MOORE, 

WM.  GIBSON,  P.  B.  BEDFORD, 

CLAIBORNE  SNEAD,        0.  L.  SMITH, 
JAMES  M.  RUSSELL       GEO.  S.  OWENS, 
JESSE  A.  GLENN,  J.  A.  W.  JOHNSON, 

JOHN  0.  GARTRELL,      P.  J.  STROZER. 
B.  A.  THORNTON." 

"  MILLEDGEVILLE,  GA.,  29^  January,  1866. 
"  Messrs.  R.  H.  CASEY,  WILLIAM  GIBSON,  and  others : 

"  The  right  claimed  by  you  in  your  note  to  me,  of  this  date,  I 
do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  at  all  calling  in  question. 

•'In  reply  to  your  interrogatory,  I  can  only  say  that  I  cannot 
imagine  any  probable  case  in  which  I  would  refuse  to  serve,  to 
the  best  of  my  abilit}',  the  people  of  Georgia,  in  any  position 
which  might  be  assigned  to  me  by  them  or  their  representatives, 
whether  assigned  with  or  without  my  consent. 

"  Yours,  truly,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS." 

The  result  was  his  election  to  the  office  of  United  States 
senator  against  his  inclinations  and  wishes.  He  was  elected 
for  the  long  term,  and  Hon.  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  for  the  short 
term.  The  vote  for  each  stood  finally,  one  hundred  and  fifty- 


206  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

two  to  thirty-nine.  Afterward,  upon  the  invitation  of  the 
members  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  through  their  pre 
siding  officers,  he  consented  to  address  them  upon  the  state  of 
public  affairs,  and  fixed  upon  the  22d  of  February,  the  anni 
versary  of  Washington's  birthday,  for  the  delivery  of  the 
address.  The  speech  then  made  is  also  in  this  collection.  It 
was  delivered  to  a  large,  intelligent,  and  anxious  audience,  in 
the  Capitol  of  the  State.  It  received  the  unanimous  indorse 
ment  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature,  and  was  ordered  to  be 
spread  at  large  upon  the  records  of  the  State. 

It  was  republished  in  almost- -all  the  leading  papers,  North 
and  South,  with  little  distinction  of  past  or  present  p&ity  pro 
clivities.  In  the  North,  it  was  printed  by  republican  and 
democrat  papers  or  noticed  by  them,  and  generally  in  kind 
terms.  In  the  South,  both  fire-eating  and  conservative  papers 
praised  it,  and  even  the  paper  in  Georgia,  controlled  by  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  and  edited  by  freedmen,  indorsed  the  views 
of  him  who  had  so  lately  been  the  second  officer  of  the  southern 
government,  but  always  the  friend  of  the  colored  people. 

It  was  reproduced  in  Europe  from  the  imperfect  copy  sent 
North  by  telegraph  at  great  expense  to  the  New  York  Times, 
and  the  comments  upon  it  were  as  various  as  the  journals  in 
which  they  appeared.  As  a  matter  both  of  interest  and  of 
curiosity  we  subjoin  some  notices  of  this  speech,  which  seems 
to  have  been  as  famous  in  all  enlightened  lands,  as  any  Ameri 
can  one  ever  made.  Some  of  the  comments  are  from  sources 
that  command  and  deserve  far  more  attention  than  any  words 
of  ours. 

[From  the  New  York  Tribune.] 

"Mr.  A.  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  delivered  by  invitation  an 
address  before  the  legislature  of  that  State  on  Washington's 
birthday.  Mr.  Stephens  had  shortly  before  been  elected  to  repre 
sent  Georgia  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  in  this  speech, 
while  referring  to  his  relutance  to  re-enter  public  life,  arising  out 
of  his  position  as  vice-president  of  the  confederacy,  accepts  the 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  207 

office  to  which  he  had  been  chosen.  Whatever  he  chose  to  say 
would  in  any  event  have  an  importance  as  the  opinion  of  the 
ablest  southern  politician.  What  he  now  says  is  especially  im 
portant,  because  he  speaks  of  his  State  and  to  his  State,  and 
must  be  presumed  to  say  the  best  word  he  can  to  advance  her 
interests. 

"  We  frankly  accord  to  this  address  the  praise  of  being  per 
haps  the  best  yet  proceeding  from  any  citizen  south  of  Mason's 
and  Dixon's  line.  It  contains  some  good  advice  to  his  con 
stituents,  and  some  sound  views  of  public  affairs.  Mr.  Stephens 
has  qualities  quite  distinct  from  those  which  usually  win  attention 
on  a  southern  stump,  and  he  displays  them  in  this  address  to 
advantage.  He  counsels  patience.  He  reminds  his  hearers  that 
they  must  expect  to  endure  such  ills  as  now  befall  them,  likening 
his  listening  constituents  to  a  man  with  a  broken  leg,  who  must 
for  the  time  tolerate  his  splints,  and  bandages — that  is,  must 
tolerate  exclusion  from  Congress,  payment  of  taxes,  military  rule, 
deprivation  of  postal  facilities,  and  '  other  matters  on  the  long 
list  of  our  present  inconveniencies.'  In  order  that  the  people 
may  advance  to  a  better  state,  they  must  show  harmony  among 
themselves  and  renewed  loyalty  to  the  government.  Mr. 
Stephens  reiterates  with  emphasis  and  with  elaboration  his  well- 
known  view  that  lo}7alty  is  perfectly  consistent  with  secession  ; 
in  other  words,  that  the  South  remained  always  faithful  to  the 
principles  of  government  which  the  constitution  was  meant  to 
embody  ;  and  that  the  only  point  at  issue  was  whether  the  State 
or  the  federal  government  should  be  paramount.  'As  for  my 
self,'  says  he,  '  I  can  affirm  that  no  sentiment  of  disloyalty  to 
these  great  principles  of  self-government  recognized  and  em 
bodied  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  ever  beat  or 
throbbed  in  heart  of  mine.'  He  would  say  the  same  for  Georgia 
and  for  the  whole  South.  Secession  he  viewed  only  as  a  means  to 
an  end,  and  the  means  has  failed. 

"  It  is  of  more  consequence  to  inquire  what  Mr.  Stephens  pro 
poses  for  the  future.  He  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt  on  this  any 
more  than  on  the  other  point :  '  We  should  accept  the  issues  of 
the  war,  and  abide  by  them  in  good  faith.'  What  are  the  issues 


208  ALEXANDEK   H.    STEPHENS. 

thus  settled  ?  First,  that  Georgia  is  in  the  Union,  not  out  of  it, 
and  that  '  the  whole  United  States,  therefore,  is  now,  without 
question,  our  country,  to  -be  cherished  and  defended  as  sucn  by 
all  our  hearts  and  by  all  our  arms.'  That  at  least  is  something. 
Next,  slavery  has  been  destroyed.  Whether  for  better  or  for 
worse  is  not  important ;  it  is  gone,  and  the  new  state  of  things 
is  to  be  accepted.  Many  changes  must  follow.  •  Old  codes  of 
law  become  obsolete.  For  the  negroes,  wise  and  humane  laws 
should  be  made.  Mr.  Stephens  uses  language  which  for  a  south 
erner  of  this  generation  is  remarkable.  *  Ample  and  full  protec 
tion  should  be  secured  to  them,  so  that  they  may  stand  equal 
before  the  law  in  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  all  rights  of 
persona,!  liberty  and  property.  That  has  even  a  flavor  of  the 
declaration  in  it.  Could  Mr.  Stephens  but  persuade  his  Georgia 
legislature  to  frame  such  opinions  into  statutes.  He  praises  the 
fidelity  of  the  negro  in  times  .past ;  admits  his  capacity  for  im 
provement,  and  correctly  lays  down  the  principle  that  the  object 
of  government  is  the  good  of  the  governed,  including  those  of 
African  descent,  '  looking  to  the  greatest  attainable  advancement, 
improvement,  and  progress,  physical,  intellectual  and  moral,  of 
all  classes  and  conditions  within  their  rightful  jurisdiction. ' 
Again,  '  all  obstacles,  if  there  be  any,  should  be  removed,  which 
can  possible  hinder  or  retard  the  blacks  to  the  extent  of  their 
capacity.'  Education  should  be  open  to  them  ;  not  onty.  for  their 
own  sake,  but  for  that  of  the  community.  '  It  is  difficult,'  says 
Mr.  Stephens,  very  explicitly  and  sensibly,  to  '  conceive  a  greater 
evil  or  curse  than  could  befall  our  country,  stricken  and  distressed 
as  it  now  is,  for  so  large  a  portion  of  its  population  as  this  class 
will  quite  probably  constitute  among  us  hereafter,  to  be  reared 
in  ignorance,  depravity,  and  vice.'  Again  we  say,  could  but  this 
belief  of  Mr.  Stephens  be  translated  into  Georgia  law,  and  into 
law  for  all  the  Southern  States,  the  problems  of  reconstruction 
were  amazingly  simplified.  We  wish  the  State  legislatures  might 
take  the  advice  of  their  counsellor  to  '  do  the  best  they  can  with 
their  problem.'  Sure  they  may  be  that  somehow  the  problem  has 
got  to  be  solved,  and  can  by  no  means  be  shirked  or  shuffled  out 
of  sight 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  209 

"It  is  fair  to  admit,  thinks  Mr.  Stephens,  that  the  outlook 
for  the  South  is  somewhat  gloomy.  We  judge  that  his  best  hopes 
lie  in  the  two  conditions  above  stated,  a  genuine  loyalty  to  the 
Union  and  justice  to  the  negro.  And  he  makes  the  remarkable 
admission — especially  remarkable  for  the  second  executive  officer 
of  the  rebel  confederac}^  that  '  during  the  whole  lamentable  con 
flict  it  was  my  opinion  that,  however  the  pending  strife  might  ter 
minate,  so  far  as  the  appeal  to  the  sword  was  concerned,  after 
awhile,  when  the  passions  and  excitement  of  the  day  should  pass 
away,  an  adjustment  would  be  made  on  equitable  principles,  upon 
a  general  basis  of  reciprocal  ad\rantage  and  mutual  convenience 
on  which  the  Union  was  first  established.'  That  can  only  mean 
that  Mr.  Stephens  was  from  the  first,  hopeless  of  what  is  'called 
southern  independence,  and  he  now  expressly  declares  that  he 
can  see  no  reason  why  the  good  sense  of  the  States  shall  not  per 
ceive  their  true  interests  to  lie  inside  the  Union — such  a  new 
Union  as  he  has  described.  Would  that  the  States  to  which  he 
refers  were  of  the  same  mind." 

[From  the  New  York  Times.] 

"  The  luxury  of  having  speeches  delivered  in  the  heart  of 
Georgia,  reported  by  telegraph,  verbatim,  for  the  New  York 
Times,  is  not  one  that  may  be  every  day  indulged  in.  But  the 
elaborate,  temperate,  and  judicious  discourse  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Ste 
phens  before  the  legislature  of  Georgia,  which  we  publish  in  full 
in  other  columns  to-day,  seems  to  us  to  justify  the  prominence 
we  give  it.  The  day  was  one  well  chosen  for  the  delivery  of  the 
best  Union  speech  heard  in  Georgia  since  the  same  speaker,  five 
years  ago,  with  terribly  prophetic  truthfulness,  depicted  all  the 
horrors,  and  anguish,  and  bitterness,  and  blood  which  must 
follow  the  treasonable  attempt  to  overthrow  the  government  and 
destroy  the  Union.  Mr.  Stephens  with  good  sense  refuses  to  go 
over  the  terrible  experience  of  the  intervening  years.  He  points 
briefly  to  the  fearful  damages  that  have  to  be  repaired.  But  his 
discourse  is  mainly  with  the  present,  with  the  duties  which  the 
actual  situation  demand — his  references  to  the  past  being  mainly 
illustrations  from  history  of  what  is  possible  in  the  adjustment 
14 


210  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

of  great  public  questions  l>y  an  appeal   from  the   sword  to  the 
arena  of  peaceful  discussions  and  legislative  deliberations. 

"  The  temper  of  Mr.  Stephens'  address  leaves  nothing  to  be 
wished  for.  It  is  a  response,  frank,  manly,  and  evidently  sin 
cere,  to  the  restoration  policy  of  the  executive.  It  comes  not 
only  from  a  clear  and  acute  thinker,  but  from  a  representative 
southern  man.  It  indicates  where  the  intelligence  of  the  South 
is  to  be  found  to-day  on  the  vital  question  of  submission  to  the 
supreme  law.  '  Bad  humor,'  says  Mr.  Stephens ;  '  ill  temper, 
exhibited  either  in  restlessness  or  grumbling,  will  not  hasten 
restoration.'  Again  he  says :  '  The  first  step  toward  local  or 
general  harmony,  is  the  banishment  from  our  breasts  of  every 
feeling  and  sentiment  calculated  to  stir  the  discords  of  the  past.' 
The  question  whether  Georgia  was  out  of  the  Union  by  the 
secession  ordinance  of  1861,  Mr.  Stephens  holds  to  be  of  no 
practical  account  to-day.  What  his  fellow-citizens  have  to  recog 
nize,  he  urges,  is,  that  '  the  whole  United  States  is  now  our  coun 
try,  to  be  cherisJied  and  defended  as  such  by  all  our  hearts  and 
all  our  arms.1 

11  Mr.  Stephens'  faith  in  the  President's  restoration  policy  is 
expressed  in  no  equivocal  terms.  And  if,  as  we  believe,  he  inter 
prets  aright  the  political  sentiment  of  the  intelligent  people  of 
the  South,  the  Executive,  and  the  Union  party  here  that  sustain 
his  policy,  will  not  find  themselves  embarrassed  by  any  solicita 
tions  for  sectional  favors  or  immediate  representation,  which  are 
not  founded  in  ceason,  and  called  for  on  the  very  highest  grounds 
of  political  expediency  and  absolute  right. 

"  It  is  important  that  Mr.  Stephens'  speech  should  be  read  in 
every  quarter  throughout  the  North.  It  is  time  that  the  era  of 
good  feeling  should  open.  Here,  at  least,  is  a  fair  occasion  for 
beginning  anew  a  friendly  interchange  of  sentiment — free  entirely 
from  party  narrowness  or  partisan  malignity.  The  country  de 
mands  that  instead  of  exhausting  measures  for  the  perpetuation 
of  sectional  hatreds,  there  shall  be  occasions  made,  if  they  do  not 
otherwise  arise,  for  applying  the  influence  of  kind  words  and  tem 
perate  counsel.  The  grand  demonstration  of  Thursday  must  in 
this  respect  produce  a  most  healthy  influence.  And  that  influence, 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  211 

we  venture  to  think,  will  be  greatly  strengthened  and  stimulated 
by  this  appeal  from  the  foremost  public  man  of  the  South." 

[From  the  Commercial  Gazette.] 

"  We  publish  in  full  the  address  delivered  by  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  before  the  Georgia  legislature,  on  the  22d  of  February. 
It  will  be  only  less  celebrated  than  his  last  appeal  for  the  Union, 
before  the  overt  acts  of  treason  and  the  outburst  of  war,  made  in 
the  same  place,  and  before  the  same  body,  five  years  ago.  Mr. 
Stephens  has  not  lost  any  of  his  old  time  ability  in  stating  a  case, 
and  has  spoken  on  this  occasion  evidently  not  to  make  a  sensa 
tion,  but  to  moderate  excitements,  and  inculcate  sentiments  of 
charity  and  good  will,  as  the  best  restorative  of  a  people  beaten 
in  arms  and  broken  in  fortune.  We  presume  he  possesses  more 
influence  than  any  other  southern  man ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  good 
signs  of  the  times  that  he  is  so  clear-sighted  and  plain-spoken  as 
to  the  actual  situation  in  the  South,  and  the  duty  of  the  southern 
people  toward  the  freedmen.  If  the  advice  given  by  Mr.  Stephens 
as  to  the  treatment  of  the  blacks  were  generally  followed  by  the 
class  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  it  was  made  apparent  that  the 
views  he  advances  regarding  the  protection  and  education  of  the 
freed,  but  almost  helpless,  and  exceedingly  ignorant  people,  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  would  be  abolished  in  three  months,  with  the 
full  consent  of  all,  except  those  interested  in  its  continuance. " 

[From  the  Louisville  Journal.] 

"  Mr.  Stephens,  by  request,  delivered  an  address  on  the  22d 
before  both  houses  of  the  Georgia  legislature,  which  will  be  found 
in  this  morning's  Journal.  We  recommend  its  attentive  perusal. 
It  is  worthy  of  it.  It  ought  to  be  read  dispassionately  by  every 
man  and  woman  in  the  country,  North  and  South.  It  is  calcu 
lated  to  do  good.  It  was  evidently  designed  to  do  good,  and  it 
will  do  good  if  reason  and  fraternity  have  not  fled  the  land.  Let 
no  one  be  deterred  in  digesting  it  on  account  of  its  length.  It 
could  not  well  have  been  shorter,  and  might  well  have  been  longer. 
We  hope  it  will  be  printed  by  every  paper  in  the  country.  The 
people  Not  Mi  and  the  people  South  ought  to  know  in  what  spirit 


212  ALEXANDER    H.   STEPHENS. 

and  to  what  intent  one  of  the  ablest  intellects  in  the  United 
States,  whose  lot  is  identified  with  the  States  lately  in  revolt,  ad 
dresses  the  legislature  that  has  lately  elected  him  senator,  and 
indirectly,  the  whole  South  and  the  whole  country.  Its  tone  is 
admirable.  Nothing,  indeed,  could  be  better,  more  truly  liberal, 
or  more  truly  loyal.  Mr.  Stephens  comprehends  the  whole  great 
question  of  reconciliation,  of  union,  and  of  peace. 

" '  No  pent  up  Utica  contracts  his  powers.' 

"  He  speaks  like  one  burdened  with  the  good  of  his  whole 
country ;  and  his  words  come  freighted  with  wisdom.  He  speaks 
like  a  Christian,  a  statesman,  and  a  philosopher.  He  does  not 
seek  to  be  eloquent,  yet  he  is  eloquent.  He  is  subdued  almost  to 
sadness  in  view  of  the  momentous  issues  of  the  hour,  and  he  is  so 
because  his  eagle  eye  runs  through  and  through  them  ;  because  he 
understands  them  ;  because  he  grasps  somewhat  of  their  indescri 
bable  greatness  and  importance.  It  is  utterly  inconceivable  to 
us  how  any  man  can  rise  from  the  perusal  of  that  address  with 
out  having  the  conviction  ineffaceably  fixed  upon  his  mind,  that 
the  author  of  it  is  truly  and  thoroughly  loyal  to  the  constitution 
and  to  the  Union,  and  to  the  best  interests  of  this  entire  country. 
Every  throb  that  runs  through  it  is  a  heart-throb  of  devoted  loy 
alty.  It  counsels  patience  and  forbearance.  It  inculcates  mod 
eration.  It  accepts  unreservedly  the  free  basis.  It  asks  for 
complete  protection  to  the  persons  and  property  of  the  freedmen. 
It  pleads  sublimely  for  charity.  It  utters  no  harsh  word.  It 
indulges  in  no  recriminations.  It  reasons  upon  facts  as  they 
exist,  and  it  draws  from  them  lessons  of  brotherhood  and  good 
will  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  people  of  all  these  great  American 
States  and  sections.  It  recognizes  no  clashing  interests  among 
them. 

"  Mr.  Stephens  sees  and  knows  that  American  nationality  is  a 
unit.  The  American  people  must  live  together  as  one  great 
family ;  and  profoundly  convinced  of  this,  he  appreciates  the  su 
preme  importance  of  the  cultivation,  among  all  classes,  of  those 
feelings  of  amity,  and  mutual  respect  and  confidence,  which  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  all  harmony,  and  are  the  very  sources  of 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  213 

strength  and  prosperity  in  a  country.  His  effort  is  a  powerful 
plea  for  pacification  and  reconciliation,  for  the  extirpation  of  all 
feuds,  and  the  thorough  eradication  of  that  spirit  of  sectional 
antagonisn  which  produced  the  bitter  fruits,  the  apples  of  Sodoin, 
which  we  have  all  tasted,  and  which  turned  to  ashes  on  our  pal 
ates.  Would  to  God  that  all  our  public  men,  our  legislators  and 
magistrates  ;  that  all  editors  and  writers,  North  and  South,  would 
imbibe  and  exhibit  the  spirit  of  this  address  of  the  great  Geor 
gian.  If  they  would  do  this,  if  they  would  all  do  this,  the  effect, 
it  seems  to  us,  would  be — and  we  speak  it  reverently — like  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  Man,  commanding  the  winds  and  the  waters 
to  be  still,  when  he  said,  '  Let  there  be  peace,'  and  there  was 
peace. 

"  In  our  judgment,  just  in  proportion  as  men,  public  or  private, 
comprehend  the  condition  and  true  interests  of  this  country,  of 
the  people  of  this  whole  country,  just  in  that  ratio  will  they 
manifest  a  spirit  similar  to  that  which  lives  and  breathes  through 
every  word  and  line  of  this  most  appropriate,  most  loyal,  most 
national  address  of  Mr.  Stephens.  He  realizes  how  mighty  and 
infuriate  were  the  passions  which  leaped  from  the  red  gulf  of 
blood  and  war,  and  how  they  yet  rankle  in  a  multitude  of  hearts, 
smaller  than  his,  and  hence  he  is  not  very  sanguine  of  ultimate 
results.  He  does  not  seem  to  think  our  American  experiment  of 
self-government  has  been  quite  finished  or  vindicated.  There 
will  be,  doubtless,  sneers  at  this  portion  of  his  address,  but  they 
will  come  from  men  who  have  not  his  intellect,  who  do  not  see  the 
high  mountain  peaks  and  the  deep  abysses  of  the  great  future 
with  a  vision  so  clear  and  piercing  as  his  is.  Let  him  who  thinks 
he  stands,  take  heed  lest  he  fall.  We  confess,  that  we,  at  times, 
profoundly  sympathize  with  his  apprehensions.  When  we  wit 
ness  the  bad  spirit  which  prevails  so  extensively  in  some  quar 
ters — a  spirit  which  seemed  to  have  learned  nothing  by  the  war, 
or  the  events  which  produced  the  war,  and  which  appears  incapa 
ble  of  learning  any  thing  from  any  source  or  in  any  school,  it  is' 
certainly  almost  enough  to  dampen  and  chill  the  most  buoyant 
hopes.  But  it  is  a  great  virtue  not  to  despair  of  the  Republic.  We 
must  have  confidence  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  reason  over  pas- 


214  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

sion,  and  in  the  strength  of  the  appliances  which,  we  trust,  will 
never  be  wanting  to  insure  the  success  of  the  self-governing  prin 
ciple  over  the  multiform  and  mighty  obstacles  with  which  it  has 
to  contend.  Let  us  hold  on  to  our  great  charter  of  freedom  with 
a  grapple  which  nothing  can  loose.  Let  us  imitate  the  noblest,  and 
not  the  meanest  of  mankind.  Let  us  make  a  herculean  effort  to 
catch  this  spirit  of  charity  and  tolerance.  Let  us  drink  at  the 
fountain  of  Mount  Vernon,  and  take  lessons  at  the  tomb  of 
Franklin." 

[From  the  Augusta  (Georgia)  Constitutionalist.] 

"  The  recent  address  of  the  Hon.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  before 
the  general  assembly  of  Georgia,  is  being  published  broadcast 
through  the  North  and  West,  winning  golden  opinions  from 
friend  and  foe.  A  few  jaundiced  radical  journals,  chronically 
blind  to  any  good  that  may  come  out  of  Nazareth,  assail  it  mildly, 
on  the  score  of  sincerity ;  asserting  that,  however  it  may  be  a 
fair  reflex  of  Mr.  Stephens'  individual  sentiments,  it  is  not  a  key 
note  of  southern  temper  and  opinion.  From  the  many  criticisms 
we  have  been  industriously  collating,  that  of  the  New  York 
Times  is  selected  as  most  judicious  and  forcible ;  mainly,  too, 
because  this  journal  is  a  bow-shot  beyond  any  republican  organ 
in  conservatism,  and  a  correct  exponent  of  the  popular  will.  It 
can  be  presented  as  the  most  enlightened  precursor  of  a  new 
party,  which  will  shake  the  Jacobin  pagoda  to  its  foundation. 

"  Mr.  Stephens'  speech  is  intended,  of  course,  to  sink  deep  into 
the  hearts  of  his  countrymen,  but  it  is  likewise  vocal  for  posteri 
ty,  and  aimed  at  the  intelligence  of  the  North.  We,  who  imme 
diately  surround  him,  may  fail  to  appreciate  it  thoroughly  from 
its  very  nearness  ;  but  the  remote  North  has  already  caught  the 
magic  of  its  utterance,  and  those  who  live  after  us  will  cherish  it 
as  the  wholesome  counsel  of  a  great  man,  who  compromises  no 
principle,  but  advises  for  the  best  when  evil  seems  insurmounta 
ble.  We  say  that  our  people  cannot  properly  regard  this  speech, 
because  of  their  proximity  to  the  artist.  How  shall  this  be  better 
illustrated  than  by  the  achievement  of  the  old  Greek  sculptor. 
His  massive  statue,  when  placed  upon  the  ground,  looked  rough 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  215 

and  uncouth :  but,  reared  upon  the  Partheon,  its  rugged  outlines 
were  mellowed  by  altitude,  and  all  its  thorough  symmetry  came 
out  in  the  relief  of  perfect  majesty.  So  with  this  memorable 
speech.  The  far  North  recognizes  the  divine  art  of  the  master 
in  his  work,  and,  niched  in  the  Partheon  of  time,  our  children 
shall  hail  it  as  most  worthy  among  the  grand  efforts  of  our  intel 
lectual  Phidias." 

[From  the  New  Orleans  Picayune  of  March  llth,  1866.] 

"  In  a  speech,  lately  delivered  before  the  Georgia  legislature, 
and  published  by  one  of  our  contemporaries  in  this  city,  we 
clearly  discover  the  master  hand  of  Georgia's  most  renowned  and 
gifted  son.  We  could  readily  have  assigned  the  authorship  of 
this  address  to  Mr.  Stephens,  without  a  positive  knowledge  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  his.  Wise  and  moderate,  forcible  and  earnest, 
delivered  in  unostentatious  terms,  lucid  and  truthful,  conviction 
follows  every  sentence,  and  we  pause  in  admiration  of  that  great 
intellect,  which  seems  equal  to  any  emergency. 

"  It  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Stephens  long  opposed  secession, 
and  only  yielded  his  opinion  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  his 
beloved  Georgia.  At  various  periods  during  the  war,  he  strove 
to  set  on  foot  negotiations  which  he  hoped  would  end  it ;  but  his 
policy  was  to  a  great  extent  overruled.  Had  it  been  otherwise, 
we  doubt  not  that  a  deplorable  waste  of  life  and  the  revolting 
horrors  of  war  would  to  a  great  extent  have  been  averted. 

"  We  have  heard  the  assertion  made,  that  Mr.  Stephens  is  '  all 
intellect,'  yet  where  shall  we  find  a  heart  more  benevolent  ?  In 
the  address  before  us,  referring  to  emancipated  slaves,  he  says : 
'Legislation  should  ever  look  to  the  protection  of  the  weak 
against  the  strong,'  and  this  principle  he  advocates  and  estab 
lishes  with  all  the  cogency  of  argument  and  strength  of  diction, 
which  make  hin»  irresistible.  Again  he  counsels  cheerful  sub 
mission  to  the  laws,  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  charity,  by  every 
motive  of  expediency  and  of  honor. 

"  Mr.  Stephens  is  a  man  who  has  made  his  mark  on  the  age — 
as  an  orator,  he  is  unsurpassed,  possessing,  in  wonderful  degree, 
that  control  over  the  human  heart,  and  that  power  of  convincing 


216  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

the  understanding,  by  which,  like  an  overmastering  torrent,  he 
bears  along  with  him  the  sympathies  of  an  audience,  while  the 
paleness  and  delicacy  of  his  face,  the  flashing  light  of  his  dark 
and  lustrous  eye,  and  the  musical  intonations  of  his  mellifluous 
voice,  hold  his  entranced  hearers  in  mute  attention — 

"  'All  soul,  all  fire,  a  revelation  given, 

As  though  some  spirit  spoke  to  earth  from  heav'n.' 

11  Yet  this  lofty  genius,  with  all  the  great  endowments  so 
rarely  bestowed  on  man,  is  coupled  with  a  woman's  tender  and 
pitying  yearning  over  the  afflicted  and  the  oppressed.  In 
strength  of  will  and  firmness  of  resolve,  a  match  for  the  lion- 
hearted  Richard  of  England,  his  gentle  accents  and  bounteous 
hands  are  accustomed  to  soothe  the  ear  of  sickness  and  scare 
away  the  demon  of  poverty.  The  good  angel  of  the  hospital,  the 
fosterer  of  friendless  talent,  the  encourager  of  worth,  he  is  no 
less  loved  in  private  life  than  he  is  honored  in  halls  of  counsel. 
His  speech  is  before  the  world,  and  we  dare  affirm  that  its  influ 
ence  on  the  public  mind  will  be  productive  of  the  happiest 
results. 

"  Mr.  Stephens'  health  is  feeble,  but  we  hope,  for  the  good  of 
his  country,  that  length  of  days  and  physical  strength,  necesnry 
to  the  discharge  of  his  responsible  duties,  may  be  vouchsafed  to 
a  statesman  so  dear  to  the  people,  so  qualified  to  adorn  our  halls 
of  legislation. 

"A  beautiful  trait  in  the  character  of  the  great  Georgian,  is  his 
perfect  truthfulness  (we  speak  from  our  own  personal  knowledge 
of  him),  his  word  is  his  bond — strong  as  the  rock  of  Gibraltar, 
and  never  to  be  falsified,  be  the  consequence  what  it  may.  No 
shuffling,  no  evasion,  no  mysticism,  does  the  crystal  of  his 
nature  allow.  '  I  will,'  or  '  I  will  not,'  are  the  curt,  unmistakable 
annunciations  of  his  position,  whatever  it  may  De. 

"  There  is  a  reverence  in  his  nature,  which,  without  parade, 
submits  all  things  to  the  will  of  Him  who  rules  amongst  the 
armies  of  heaven  and  the  inhabitants  of  earth — the  God  of  bat 
tles  and  of  nations,  in  whose  hands  we  are,  and  to  whose  provi- 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  217 

dence  we,  like  Mr.  Stephens,  commit  ourselves  in  this  our  day 
of  trial  and  humiliation." 

From  Europe  we  gather  but  one  notice,  as  we  have  taken  up 
so  much  space  already. 

[From  the  Cosmopolitan  of  London  and  Paris,  March  17th,  1866.] 

"Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  delivered* an  address 
before  the  legislature  of  that  State,  on  Washington's  birthday, 
the  22d  of  last  month.  This  address  was  considered  by  one  of 
the  leading  journals  of  the  North  important  enough  to  be  tele 
graphed  entire,  and  accordingly  we  find  it  occupying  four  closely 
printed  columns  of  the  New  York  Times,  the  recognized  organ  of 
the  Administration.  Considering  the  occasion,  the  speaker,  and 
the  momentous  nature  of  the  subjects  dilated  upon,  the  speech 
merits  the  importance  attached  to  it.  It  is  such  a  political  ad 
dress  as  is,  we  take  it,  not  often  heard  in  America — calm,  logical, 
deriving  its  eloquence  mostly  from  its  large  and  generous  ideas 
— though  not  devoid  of  the  graces  of  language — and  informed 
throughout  with  the  spirit  of  a  ripe,  liberal,  and  noble  political 
philosophy.  It  is  an  effort  that  recalls  the  first  race  of  American 
statesmen.  Mr.  Stephens  counsels  submission,  and  a  full  and 
honest  acceptance  of  the  issues  of  the  war,  but  he  abates  not  one 
jot  or  tittle  in  the  rights  of  the  States  under  the  constitution.  He 
claims  for  Georgia  a  place  in  the  restored  Union  as  the  equal  of 
each  and  all  of  those  States  that  fought  to  preserve  that  Union, 
as  still  the  indisputable  co-heiress  of  the  past  and  the  future. 

"  The  address  is,  indeed,  deserving  of  the  attention  and  com 
mendations  it  has  received  from  the  conservative  journals  of  the 
North." 

The  following  is  the  close  of  that  speech  of  February  22d, 
1866,  of  which  the  foregoing  notices  were  made : 

"  But  we  shall  have  still  left  all  the  essentials  of  free  govern 
ment,  contained  and  embodied  in  the  old  constitution,  untouched 
and  unimpaired  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  our  fathers. 
"With  these,  even  if  we  had  to  begin  entirely  anew,  the  prospect 
before  us  would  be  much  more  encouraging  than  the  prospect 


218  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

was  before  them,  when  they  fled  from  the  oppressions  of  the  old 
world,  and  sought  shelter  and  homes  in  this,  then  wilderness, 
land.  The  liberties  we  begin  with,  they  had  to  achieve.  With 
the  same  energies  and  virtues  they  displayed,  we  have  much  more 
to  cheer  us  than  they  had.  With  a  climate  unrivalled  in  salu 
brity,  with  a  soil  unsurpassed  in  fertility,  and  with  products  un 
equalled  in  «value  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  to  say  nothing  of 
our  mineral  resources,  we  shall  have  much  still  to  wed  us  to  the 
good  old  land.  With  good  government — the  matrix  from  which 
alone  spring  all  great  human  achievements — we  shall  lack  nothing 
but  our  own  proper  exertions,  not  only  to  recover  our  former 
prosperity,  but  to  attain  a  much  higher  degree  of  development, 
in  every  thing  that  characterizes  a  great,  free,  and  happy  people. 
At  least,  I  know  of  no  other  land  that  the  sun  shines  upon  that 
offers  better  prospects  under  the  contingencies  stated. 

"  The  old  Union  was  based  upon  the  assumption,  that  it  was 
for  the  best  interest  of  the  people  of  all  the  States  to  be  united 
as  they  were,  each  State  faithfully  performing  to  the  people  of 
the  other  States  all  their  obligations  under  the  common  compact. 
I  always  thought  this  assumption  was  founded  upon  broad,  cor 
rect,  and  statesmanlike  principles.  I  think  so  yet.  It  was  only 
when  it  seemed  to  be  impossible  further  to  maintain  it,  without 
hazarding  greater  evils  than  would,  perhaps,  attend  a  separation, 
that  I  yielded  my  assent,  in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  Georgia,  to 
try  the  experiment  which  has  just  resulted  so  disastrously  to  us. 
Indeed,  during  the  whole  lamentable  conflict,  it  was  my  opinion 
that,  however  the  pending  strife  might  terminate,  so  far  as  the 
appeal  to  the  sword  was  concerned,  yet,  after  awhile,  when  the 
passions  and  excitements  of  the  day  should  pass  away,  an  adjust 
ment  or  arrangement  would  be  made  upon  continental  principles, 
upon  the  general  basis  of  '  reciprocal  advantage  and  mutual  con 
venience,'  on  which  the  Union  was  first  established.  My  earnest 
desire,  however,  throughout,  was,  whatever  might  be  done,  might 
be  peacefully  done — might  be  the  result  of  calm,  dispassionate, 
and  enlightened  reason,  looking  to  the  permanent  interests  and 
welfare  of  all.  And  now,  after  the  severe  chastisement  of  war, 
if  the  general  sense  of  the  whole  country  shall  come  back  to  the 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  219 

acknowledgment  of  the  original  assumption,  that  it  is  for  the 
best  interests  of  all  the  States  to  be  so  united,  as  I  trust  it  will — 
the  States  still  being  '  separate  as  the  billows,  but  one  as  the  sea' 
— I  can  perceive  no  reason  why,  under  such  restoration,  we,  as  a 
whole,  with  '  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  na 
tions,  and  entangling  alliances  with  none,'  may  not  enter  upon  a 
new  career,  exciting  increased  wonder  in  the  old  world,  by 
grander  achievements  hereafter  to  be  made,  than  airy  heretofore 
attained,  by  the  peaceful  and  harmonious  workings  of  our  Amer 
ican  institutions  of  self-government.  All  this  is  possible,  if  the 
hearts  of  the  people  be  right.  It  is  my  earnest  wish  to  see  it. 
Fondly  would  I  indulge  my  fancy  in  gazing  on  such  a  picture  of 
the  future.  With  what  rapture  may  we  not  suppose  the  spirits 
of  our  fathers  would  hail  its  opening  scenes  from  their  mansions 
above.  Such  are  my  hopes,  resting  on  such  contingencies.  But 
if,  instead  of  all  this,  the  passions  of  the  day  shall  continue  to 
bear  sway;  if  prejudice  shall  rule  the  hour;  if  a  conflict  of  races 
shall  arise  ;  if  ambition  shall  turn  the  scale  ;  if  the  sword  shall  be 
thrown  in  the  balance  against  patriotism ;  if  the  embers  of  the 
late  war  shall  be  kept  a  glowing  until,  with  new  fuel,  the}'  shall 
flame  up  again,  then  our  present  gloom  is  but  the  shadow,  the 
penumbra  of  that  deeper  and  darker  eclipse  which  is  to  totally 
obscure  this  hemisphere,  and  blight  forever  the  anxious  anticipa 
tions  and  expectations  of  mankind  !  Then,  hereafter,  by  some 
bard,  it  may  be  sung : 

"  '  The  star  of  Hope  shone  brightest  in  the  West, 
The  hope  of  Liberty,  the  last,  the  best ; 
That,  too,  has  set,  upon  her  darkened  shore, 
And  Hope  and  Freedom  light  up  earth  no  more.' 

"  May  we  not  all,  on  this  occasion,  on  this  anniversary  of  the 
birthday  of  Washington,  join  in  the  fervent  prayer  to  heaven, 
that  the  Great  lluler  of  events  may  avert  from  this  land,  such  a 
fall,  such  a  fate,  and  such  a  requiem !" 

This  speech  gave  rise  to  a  poem,  under  circumstances  which 
may  excuse  the  writer  for  stating  them,  as  well  as  for  intro- 


220  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

ducrag  the  poem  itself.  Because  of  the  importance  of  the  sub 
ject  and  the  occasion,  the  speech  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Stephens 
at  home,  it  being,  as  before  stated,  the  second  political  speech 
ever  written  by  him  before  delivery.  The  writer  being  at  Lib 
erty  Hall  at  the  time  of  its  preparation,  Mr.  Stephens  showed 
him  a  paraphrased  quotation  from  Campbell,  which  he  had  an 
idea  of  using ;  but  which,  however,  he  did  not  exactly  like. 
The  writer  thereupon  submitted  to  him  an  impromptu  verse, 
which  now  makes  the  tenth  of  the  poem,  and  asked  him  how 
he  liked  that  in  lieu  of  the  other.  He  said,  very  well;  and 
asked  the  writer  where  he  got  it.  He  told  him  he  got  it  from 
the  inspiration  of  hearing  him  read  the  latter  part  of  the  speech. 
"  By  your  permission,  then,"  he  said,  "  I  will  adopt  it."  This 
he  accordingly  did,  with  such  changes  as  better  suited  his  taste. 
These  will  appear  from  comparing  the  verse  as  it  now  stands  in 
the  speech  with  the  original  as  it  appears  in  the  poem.  On 
his  return  home,  after  the  delivery  of  the  speech,  he  told  the 
writer  that  several  inquiries  had  been  made  of  him  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  verse,  and  commendation  of  it  had  been  ex 
pressed.  He  then  suggested  to  the  writer  to  make,  on  the  same 
theme,  a  poem,  in  which  the  verse  should  appear,  and  from 
which  it  should  seem  to  be  quoted.  The  result  of  that  sugges 
tion  was  the  following  verses,  written  in  attempted  harmony 
with  the  concluding  part  of  the  speech : 

A  EEQUIEM  FOE  THE  LAND,  IP  LIBEETY  IS  LOST, 
A  land  there  was,  toward  the  setting  sun, 
Fresh  as  if  Eden  were  again  begun  ; 
Two  great  twin  oceans  bathed  the  happy  shore, 
And  Fancy  looking,  could  not  ask  for  more. 

Arabia  Felix*  was  not  half  so  fair ; 
"  The  Blessed  Islands'^  seemed  transplanted  there ; 
Pure  women  walked  its  flower-enameled  sod, 
And  man  was  there — "  The  image  of  his  God  !" 

*  Arabia  the  happy. 

f  The  Greeks  located  the  "  Blessed  Islands"  in  the  western  seas. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  221 

Heaven's  holiest  orbs  lit  its  o'er-arching  blue ; 
Its  laws  were  sacred,  and  its  faith  as  true ; 
While  on  its  flag,  protecting  faith  and  law, 
Both  blue  and  stars,  their  radiant  image  saw. 

Such  was  the  land  before  its  glory  fled ; 
And  while  were  reverenced  its  holy  dead, 
From  Nature's  womb,  the  fairest  child  of  morn, 
Oppression's  refuge — Freedom's  latest  born. 

How  that  land  perished,  ask  the  saddened  stars, 
Or  weeping  angels  at  heaven's  crystal  bars ; 
Or  all  the  martyr  dead,  who  died  to  save 
Those  sunset  chambers  by  the  western  wave. 

No  deluge  swept  its  blooming  fields  away, 
Nor  earthquakes  swallowed  cities  in  a  day ; 
Nor  curse  on  atmosphere,  or  soil,  or  sea, 
Blighted  that  garden  of  earth's  latest  Free. 

Its  daughters  lived,  the  fairest  of  the  earth ; 
Still  harp  and  timbrel  led  the  dance  of  mirth ; 
But  the  free  stars  upon  its  flag  were  furled, 
And  they,  in  fading,  darkened  all  the  world. 

Some  future  sun  may  dissipate  that  night, 
Or  God  creating,  say,  "  Let  there  be  light  I" 
But  Pity  wept  that  land's  poor  perished  pride, 
And  Heaven  shuddered  when  her  HONOR  died. 

Good-will  to  each,  and  equal  rights  to  all, 
Was  the  blest  creed  that  perished  in  her  fall ; 
'  And  mourning  skies,  beholding  from  afar, 
Saw  no  such  fall,  since  him,  "  The  Morning  Star." 

The  star  of  Hope  shone  latest  in  the  West; 
That  dream  of  Empire  was  the  last,  the  best ; 
It,  too,  has  set  upon  her  darkening  shore, 
And  Hope  and  Freedom  visit  earth  no  more. 

Shall  no  Columbus  find  another  world  ? 
Shall  Freedom's  ensign  be  no  more  unfurled  ? 
Shall  no  land  be  where  the  oppressed  may  come— 
Its  laws  their  refuge,  and  its  hills  their  home  ? 


222  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

Must  heavenly  skies  but  spread  o'er  blasted  hopes, 
While  troubled  waters  murmur  down  her  slopes  ? 
And  sky  and  water  tell  the  sighing  air, 
That  earth's  last  requiem  is  the  word — Despair? 

Oh,  let  us  listen  for  some  heaven-sent  voice, 
O'er  western  waves  to  shout  aloud,  Rejoice  ! 
And  bid  once  more,  the  guardian  angels  come 
To  fold  their  pinions  on  the  hearth  of  home. 

But  our  strained  ears  catch  no  sweet  song  afar, 
Like  that  which  followed  Bethlehem's  natal  star, 
"When  angel  feet  the  hills  of  Canaan  trod, 
And  stooping  heaven  proclaimed  the  Son  of  God. 

No  prophet  angel  shouts,  "  She  lives  again  !" 
No  new  Columbus  ploughs  the  boiling  main : 
And  Hope  and  Freedom,  from  the  eternal  shore, 
Look  sadly  back,  while  heavens  sigh — "  No  MORE." 

On  the  16th  day  of  April,  1866,  Mr.  Stephens  being  in 
Washington  city,  was  summoned  before  the  Reconstruction  Com 
mittee  of  Congress,  and  gave  the  EVIDENCE  which  we  copy  in 
this  volume  in  full  from  the  National  Intelligencer  of  the  17th 
of  that  month.  From  the  thousands  of  comments  upon  it  from 
the  public  press,  we  cull  the  following : 

[From  the  National  Republican,  Washington  City,  D.  C.,  April  18th,  1866.] 
*  *  #  *  *  *  * 

"  It  is  a  strange  coincidence  that  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Stephens, 
a  high  rebel  official,  in  all  main  points  corroborates  that  of  the 
republican  Federal  officer  from  Arkansas.  With  the  exception 
of  the  number  of  those  who  engaged  in  the  Federal  service,  and 
the  previous  Union  sentiments  of  those  that  Georgia  has  chosen 
to  represent  her  in  the  national  councils,  the  story  of  the  former 
is  the  story  of  the  latter.  From  Mr.  Stephens  we  have  the  same 
statement  of  complete  submission  to  present  circumstances. 
The  policy  of  secession  is  universally  abandoned ;  the  unani 
mous  desire  is  for  a  return  to  the  national  relations  with  the  coun 
try  ;  the  undivided  sentiment  is  for  obedience  to  and  participa- 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  223 

tion  with  the  United  States  government.  In  that  lies  all  their 
chances  or  calculations  for  the  future.  Georgia,  too,  has  given 
the  death-blow  to  slavery ;  has  repudiated  rebel  obligations,  and 
has,  by  the  most  emphatic  legislation,  placed  her  colored  citizens 
upon  equal  privileges,  and  subjected  them  to  similar  penalties 
for  misdemeanors  with  the  white  race,  conceding  thereby  every 
thing  which  was  mooted  as  necessary  while  the  stern  struggle 
for  national  existence  was  progressing.  Mr.  Stephens  considers 
Georgia  loyal,  and  defines  loyalty  '  to  be  loyal  to  law,  order,  and 
the  constitution — to  support  the  government  under  the  constitu 
tion.'  That  definition  is  good  enough  for  us.  It  is  the  one 
which  the  founders  of  this  republic  originated — which  this  heroic 
generation  rushed  to  arms  in  order  to  demonstrate  at  the  dread 
tribunal  of  war ;  and  it  is  one  which  will  be  accepted  as  final  by 
our  intelligent  fellow-countrymen,  who  will  hail,  with  feelings  of 
unmingled  gratitude,  its  adoption  throughout  the  broad  domain 
of  their  country.  Mr.  Stephens  says  that  the  conduct  of  the 
negro  race  is  'much  better  than  the  most  hopeful  looked  for.' 
Such  testimony  is  cause  for  rejoicing,  and  is  of  more  value  to 
that  unfortunate  race  than  all  the  bureau  or  Civil  Rights  bills 
that  human  wisdom  or  human  folly  can  devise.  Mr.  Stephens 
also  says,  for  himself,  '  I  should  not  be  individually  opposed  to  a 
proper  system  of  limited  or  restricted  suffrage'  to  the  colored 
population.  He  believes,  as  does  every  constitutional  American, 
that  this  is  a  question  solely  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  States. 
We  regard  his  opinion  as  of  great  weight.  It  is  entitled  to 
respect,  not  only  from  his  connection  with  the  lamentable  con 
spiracy  against  his  government,  but  from  his  long  career  of 
statesmanship  in  the  olden  days,  aud  his  superior  talents  and 
vast  influence  with  his  community,  which  no  sane  man  will  under 
rate.  If  the  negro  of  the  South  ever  rises  in  the  scale  of  society — 
ever  becomes  endowed  with  the  dignity  of  franchise,  it  will  be 
by  the  efforts  and  examples  of  such  men  as  A.  H.  Stephens,  of 
Georgia." 

[From  the  New  York  Times.] 

"  The  same  philosophical  characteristics  that  distinguished  the 
speeches  of  Mr.   Stephens,  of  Georgia,  appear  in  his  testimony. 


ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

recently  given  before  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction.  It  differs 
very  strikingly  in  several  respects,  and  in  none  more  than  in  its 
vein  of  philosophy,  from  the  testimony  of  General  Lee.  Lee  de 
clined  to  indulge  in  speculative  fancies  ;  refused  to  go  below  the 
surface,  or  to  set  forth  any  thing  that  was  not  quite  palpable 
upon  the  face  of  it.  He  could  hardly  be  drawn  into  the  answer 
ing  of  questions  involving  political  views,  and  was  cautious  to  the 
last  degree  as  to  the  force  and  bearing  of  every  word  he  uttered. 
Stephens  was  more  open  and  free,  more  explicit  and  exact,  as 
well  as  more  rhetorical,  less  dubious,  and  less  fearful ;  and  was 
not  backward  in  exhibiting  what  of  course  he  possesses — a  far  more 
thorough  knowledge  of  political  influences  and  laws,  and  a  far 
more  extensive  apprehension  of  the  springs  of  human  action  and 
the  forces  that  govern  the  popular  will. 

"  The  two  names  just  mentioned  are  those  of  the  two  foremost 
men  in  the  Southern  States.  The  testimony  of  no  other  party  or 
parties  could  be  of  equal  importance  or  historical  value,  unless  it 
were  that  of  Jefferson  Davis. 

"  We  are  by  no  means  committing  ourselves  to  the  political 
philosophy  of  Stephens,  as  set  forth  in  his  testimony,  when  we  say 
that  in  many  particulars  it  possesses  the  characteristics  that  are 
ordinarily  designated  statesmanlike.  Stephens  displays  a  faith 
more  or  less  firm  in  principle,  and  a  profound  regard  for  that 
which  is  expedient.  Mistaken  frequently  in  the  apprehension  of 
truth — as  in  his  celebrated  '  corner-stone'  blunder — he  yet  ex 
hibits  a  perpetual  tendency  to  base  himself  on  broad  and  estab 
lished  doctrines ;  but,  when  the  application  of  any  one  of  those 
doctrines  to  the  circumstances  of  practical  life  is  palpably  impos 
sible,  he  would  either  ignore  it  altogether,  or,  for  the  time  being, 
subordinate  it.  He  declares  himself,  for  example,  to  have  been  a 
Union  man  at  the  epoch  of  secession  ;  but  finding  secession  in 
evitable  and  the  Confederacy  an  accomplished  fact,  he  became  a 
leader  of  the  new  Confederacy,  in  order  that  he  might  do  all  in 
his  power  to  rescue  and  perpetuate  the  principles  established  in 
the  old  constitution  and  the  political  forms  established  in  the 
original  Union.  So  now,  again,  he  is  still  a  believer  in  the  '  sep 
arate  sovereignty  of  the  several  States,'  though  it  will  be  observed 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  225 

he  does  not  now  reiterate  as  strongly  as  he  proclaimed  in  the 
South  two  or  three  years  ago,  the  '  ultimate,  absolute  sovereignty' 
of  each  State ;  but  while,  as  he  alleges,  his  '  convictions  on  the 
original  abstract  questions  have  undergone  no  change,'  he  accepts 
the  issue  of  the  war  as  settling  it  finally  against  his  views. 

"  Mr.  Stephens  sets  forth  views  analogous  in  principle  to  his 
own,  as  having  controlled  the  action  of  the  southern  people  in 
the  past,  and  as  still  controlling  it.  Circumstances,  such  as  the 
secession  of  South  Carolina,  compelled  the  citizens  of  Georgia 
to  act  against  their  own  convictions,  and  though  Unionists  in 
principle,  they  fell  into,  indorsed,  and  fought  for  the  destructive 
policy  of  disunion.  They  had  always  believed,  however,  that  the 
State  had  the  right  of  secession,  and  though  Mr.  Stephens  is  cau 
tious  on  this  subject,  remarking  that  '  some  may  have  changed 
their  opinion  in  this  respect,  but  it  would  be  an  unusual  thing,  as 
well  as  a  difficult  matter,  for  a  whole  people  to  change  their  con 
victions  upon  abstract  principles,'  yet  he  reiterates  with  great 
force  that  the  entire  State,  like  himself,  has  accepted  the  result 
of  the  war  on  this  question,  or  on  these  questions,  as  final,  and 
will  in  no  case  bring  them  again  into  dispute  in  the  arena  of  war. 
They  tried  war,  he  says,  for  the  maintenance  of  their  rights,  but 
having  found  that  it  destroyed  them  all,  they  will  now  and  hence 
forth  seek  their  maintenance  only  by  ways  of  peace. 

"  It  is  not  in  the  novelty  of  Mr.  Stephens'  statements  that  their 
interest  and  value  lie  ;  but  as  furnishing  the  ablest  analysis  of  the 
grounds  of  Southern  political  action,  and  as  personal  narration 
of  the  processes  of  his  own  intellect,  during  two  great  historical 
crises,  they  are  of  enduring  interest." 

[From  the  Richmond  Dispatch.] 

"We  publish  this  morning  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Stephens  given 
before  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction.  Frankly,  truthfully, 
and  ably  did  Mr.  Stephens  reply  to  the  Pharisees  and  Saddu- 
cees.  Their  artful  and  entrapping  questions  were  turned  against 
themselves.  Mr.  Stephens  has  more  sense  than  all  of  them  com 
bined,  and  more  patriotism  to  boot.  Their  whole  study  and  voca 
tion  is  to  malign  the  South  and  excite  against  her  the  indignation 
15 


226  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

of  the  northern  people,  that  thus  they  and  their  party  may  control 
the  officers,  and  the  emoluments,  and  the  fat  shoddy  contracts  of 
the  government.  To  this  it  is  that  the  welfare  and  peace  of  a 
nation  must  be  subordinate." 

[From  the  Baltimore  Sun.] 

"  The  testimony  given  by  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia, 
before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  of  Congress  must  have 
arrested  the  attention  of  every  thinking  mind  throughout  the 
country.  No  man  is  better  informed  upon  the  sentiments  and 
opinions  of  the  people  of  the  South  than  Mr.  Stephens,  and  there 
is  no  one  whose  testimony  could  be  more  clearly  and  candidly 
given  than  his  has  been.  It  is  worth  to  those  who  desire  the 
means  of  forming  correct  judgment  for  themselves  whole  volumes 
of  such  crude  conjectures  and  hearsay  declarations  as  the  com 
mittee  gathered  and  poured  upon  the  public  on  the  eve  of  the 
New  Hampshire  and  Connecticut  elections. 

"  Mr.  Stephens  defines  so  clearly  and  precisely  the  difference 
between  the  abstract  speculative  opinions  of  the  southern  people 
upon  the  doctrine  of  secession  and  the  opinions  and  views  in  re 
gard  to  it  as  a  practical  and  rational  means  for  redressing  politi 
cal  grievances,  in  view  of  what  has  occurred  during  the  war,  that 
those  enemies  of  reconstruction  who  found  an  argument  against 
the  admission  of  the  southern  States  upon  their  continued  adher 
ence  to  those  opinions  as  abstract  opinions  are  left  without  decent 
excuse  for  their  position.  If,  as  Mr.  Stephens  tells  us,  there  is  a 
settled  conviction  in  the  mind  of  the  South  that  an  appeal  to  the 
forums  of  reason  and  justice,  to  the  halls  of  legislation,  and  to 
the  courts,  for  the  preservation  of  constitutional  liberty,  is  the  ap 
propriate  and  only  practical  remedy,  and  not  the  conflict  of  arms, 
then  those  who  will  see,  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  there  can  be  no 
more  danger  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  country  from  restoring 
the  relations  of  the  States  than  there  is  in  confiding  the  preserva 
tion  of  our  institutions  to  the  keeping  of  any  other  men  who  may 
recognize  the  right  of  revolution  as  an  inherent  right  in  society 
whenever  the  ends  of  government  are  perverted  and  public  liberty 
manifestly  endangered,  and  all  other  means  of  redress  are  ineffec- 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  227 

tual.  The  clamor  will  doubtless  be  raised  by  some  that  the  cloven 
foot  of  secession  is  plainly  revealed  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Ste 
phens,  and  that  there  is  danger  so  long  as  a  fibre  of  the  pestilent 
heresy  can  be  traced  in  the  public  mind ;  but  the  good  sense  and 
candor  of  the  American  people  will  not  be  deceived  by  such  empty 
noise. 

"  In  another  particular  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stephens  is  equally 
significant  and  valuable  to  those  who  wish  to  form  a  right  judg 
ment  of  the  policy  to  be  pursued  toward  the  southern  States.  It 
is  as  to  the  moral  character  of  the  motives  which  induced  the 
southern  people  to  embrace  the  war.  They  were  not,  he  main 
tains,  instigated  by  any  dislike  of,  or  desire  to  overthrow  the 
principles  of,  constitutional  liberty  or  the  form  of  government 
under  which  we  live,  but  that  they  were  as  much  devoted  to  them 
as  any  people  ever  were  to  any  cause,  and  they  resorted  to  seces 
sion  not  for  the  purpose  of  overthrowing  but  as  a  means  by  which 
they  might  more  securely  maintain  those  principles  and  institu 
tions.  Grant,  therefore,  as  they  freely  do,  that  they  were  mourn 
fully  mistaken  in  that  particular — that  they  have  gathered  an 
experience  too  dearly  purchased  to  be  soon  forgotten — still  it 
remains  that  the  blight  of  infamy  cannot  attach  to  them  for 
mistaking  the  proper  means  of  securing  and  maintaining  what, 
in  common  with  the  supporters  of  the  Union,  they  prize  above 
every  thing  else.  Nor  is  it  just  or  wise  to  brand  with  the  name 
of  traitor,  men  whose  hearts  were  throughout  loyal  to  constitu 
tional  liberty.  To-day  those  men  can  be  as  safely  trusted  with 
the  guardianship  of  the  Union  as  any  in  the  land.  Perhaps  it  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  they  know  better  how  to  value  its  bless 
ings  by  knowing  how  much  it  has  cost  them  to  be  separated  from 
its  protecting  influences,  and  hx>w  sadly  and  disastrously  they 
erred  in  the  measures  to  which  mistaken  zeal  compelled  them. 

"Mr.  Stephens'  testimony  is  valuable  in  another  particular. 
Showing  that  the  States  have  in  good  faith  accepted  and  returned 
cordially  to  their  allegiance  to  the  constitution,  he  shows  that 
they  are  unwilling  to  submit  to  injustice  at  the  hands  of  Congress, 
or  to  accept  as  conditions  of  restoration  terms  which  that  body 
has  no  constitutional  power  to  exact,  and  that  the  position  of 


228   ,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

unionists  and  disunionists  is  so  far  reversed  between  them  and 
the  central  directory,  which  still  insists  upon  their  exclusion 
except  upon  guarantees  unknown  to  the  organic  law,  that  the 
epithet  of  disunionists  belongs  of  right  to  those  who  obstruct,  and 
not  to  the  people  of  the  South,  who  ardently  and  honestly  desire 
to  return  to  the  Union.  There  are  many  minor  points  of  great 
interest  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stephens  ;  indeed  ever}^  part  of 
it  is  replete  with  comprehensive  views  and  just  and  manly  senti 
ments.  We  have  only  adverted  to  the  more  prominent  points, 
in  the  belief  that  the  attention  which  is  fastened  upon  them  will 
be  directed  afterward  to  every  topic  upon  which  he  spoke  in  the 
course  of  his  examination." 

[From  the  Richmond  (Va.)  Daily  Examiner.] 

11  The  evidence  of  Mr.  Stephens  of  Georgia,  before  the  Recon 
struction  Committee,  has  just  been  published ;  and  while  we  can 
not  agree  with  some  of  his  opinions  upon  principles,  we  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  he  is  correct  in  all  his  statements  of 
facts.  We  know  of  no  man  whose  testimony  should  be  received 
by  all  sections  with  more  confidence  than  that  of  A.  H.  Stephens. 
He  has  never  been  known  as  a  partisan ;  seems  never  to  have  in 
dulged  in  prejudices  ;  and  in  times  of  greatest  passion  and  excite 
ment  he  has  remained  calm  and  cool,  without  a  smile  or  frown 
for  any  thing,  impassive  and  self-poised.  With  but  little  of  the 
'  grand'  about  him,  he  has  always  struck  us  as  being  rather 
'  gloomy  and  peculiar.'  But  those  very  characteristics  that  quite 
unfitted  him  for  some  of  the  great  roles  of  life,  mark  him  as  a  re 
liable  witness  or  an  impartial  judge.  We  confess  to  have  had 
very  little  admiration  for  some  of  his  idiosyncracies,  but  for  his 
uprightness,  his  clear  judgment,  and  his  unblemished  record  as  a 
man  and  statesman,  we  have  had  the  greatest  respect. 

"  One  main  point  upon  which  the  vice-president  of  the  late 
confederacy  is  especially  full,  emphatic,  and  satisfactory,  is  that 
Georgia  will  not  agree  to  any  further  concessions  ;  that  she  will 
not  accept  her  equality  in  the  Union  upon  any  conditions  prece 
dent,  and  that  she  will  rather  exist  as  she  may  without  that 
equality  than  purchase  it  by  any  unworthy  price.  We  are  glad 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  229 

to  see  that  Georgia  is  of  one  mind  with  her  southern  sisters ;  and 
Mr.  Stephens  is  to  be  thanked  by  every  friend  to  States-Rights 
for  the  clear  and  forcible  way  in  which  he  puts  the  case  and 
enunciates  the  principle." 

*  #•  *  *  #  * 

But  we  have  already  extended  these  extracts  quite  far  enough 
and  close  this  branch  of  our  subject  with  the  following  beautiful 
compliment  from  the  pen  of  the  poet  editor  of  the  central  States 
— George  D.  Prentice : 

"  It  is  a  sublime  spectacle  to  see  a  man  like  Alexander  H.  Ste 
phens,  just  returned  from  the  confines  of  a  northern  prison,  wasted 
in  health  and  in  means,  exhorting  his  countrymen  to  patience  and 
Christian  forbearance.  Let  all  Christian  men  emulate  his  noble 
example.  Good  government  is  what  we  want.  This  can  be 
obtained  only  through  patience,  forbearance,  and  charity,  by  parti 
sans  of  both  sections." 


230  ALEXANDEK  H.   STEPHENS. 


IX. 
CONCLUDING  KEMARKS. 

IT  has  not  been  any  part  of  our  plan  to  attempt  a  connected 
biographical  sketch  of  Mr.  Stephens,  but  rather  to  afford 
glimpses,  like  the  occasional  lights  that  adorn  the  shadows  of 
the  forest.  All  life  is  a  thing  of  light  and  shade,  and  we  would 
only  paint  the  sunshine,  knowing  that  enough  cloud-land  will 
blend  at  all  events  with  all  earthly  pictures.  We  do  not  say 
that  Mr.  Stephens  has  no  faults,  that  he  has  committed  no 
errors,  for  sin  is  the  heritage  of  us  all,  and  perfection  but  the 
dream  of  the  angels.  We  only  say  that  we  have  known  Mr. 
Stephens  long ;  known  him  in  public  and  private  life ;  known 
him  in  those  unguarded  hours,  and  seen  him  in  those  moments 
of  temptation  when  the  great  enemy  of  souls  aims  at  the  vul 
nerable  heel  of  every  mortal  Achilles  ;  and  we  simply  bear  tes 
timony  that  he  has  as  few  faults  as  any  man  we  ever  knew. 
When  good  and  ill  are  put  into  the  great  scales  of  God,  which 
hang 

"  'Twixt  Astrea  and  the  Scorpion  sign" 

in  heaven,  and  Justice  weighs  our  worth,  all  of  us  will  have 
much  need  of  mercy. 

He  is  distinguished  for  kindness,  uprightness,  and  benevo 
lence.  He  is  strictly  moral,  and  has  no  bad  habits  or  vices, 
and  indulges  in  no  kind  of  dissipation.  In  temperance  he  is 
strict,  and  while  not  objecting  to  an  occasional  glass  of  wine,  he 
eschews  the  habitual  use  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  never 
tastes  distilled  spirits  save  as  a  medicine.  This  is  sometimes  a 
necessity  from  the  exhaustion  of  speaking.  He  has  often  been 
heard  so  say  that  he  was  never  intoxicated  in  his  life,  and  never 
swore  an  oath,  nor  bet  a  cent  of  money. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  231 

Mr.  Stephens  lias  often  shown  his  appreciation  of  the  help 
rendered  him  in  boyhood,  by  thus  helping  others.  Thirty-six 
young  men  have  been  educated  by  him;  many  of  whom  now 
adorn  the  pulpit,  the  bar,  and  other  honorable  vocations. 

Of  the  unostentatious  aid  that  he  has  given  the  destitute,  the 
widow  and  the  orphan,  of  the  naked  clad,  the  hungry  fed,  the 
debtor  loaned  or  given  money,  the  soldier  and  his  family  cared 
for  and  supported,  the  sick  and  wounded  foeman  of  the  North 
visited  and  consoled,  his  young  kindred  of  both  sexes  educated 
and  prepared  for  life's  great  battle,  and  not  less  useful  if  less 
costly,  his  patient  counsel  and  direction  of  the  weak  and  erring, 
and  the  precept  and  example  of  honest  life ;  all  this  must  be 
gathered'  by  the  wayside  from  the  recipients,  for  he  talks  not 
of  it.  Charity,  like  mercy, 

"  Is  not  strained  ; 

It  droppeth  as  the  gentle  rain  from  heaven 
Upon  the  place  beneath  ;  it  is  twice  blessed — 
It  blesseth  him  that  gives  and  him  that  takes — 
Tis  mightiest  in  the  mightiest ;  it  becomes 
The  throned  monarch  better  than  his  crown. 
It  is  an  attribute  of  God  himself." 

The  best  evidence  of  his  manner  of  life,  and  its  uses,  is 
found  in  the  fact  of  his  utter  disregard  of  money,  except  as  a 
means  of  doing  good.  He  has  made  much  over  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars  at  the  practice  of  law,  and  yet  his  whole  estate 
to-day  is  not  worth  over  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  he  has 
wasted  no  money  and  sustained  no  losses  in  either  speculation 
or  trade.  It  has  gone  in  the  continual  drain  of  the  thousand 
streamlets  of  charity. 

He  never  kept  an  overseer  on  his  plantation.  It  was  carried 
on  by  his  servants  under  his  direction  by  letters  while  he  was 
in  Washington  and  Kichrnond. 

His  negroes  all  remain  with  him,  all  work  well,  and  seem 
happy,  cheerful,  and  contented.  It  is  their  special  boast  that 
they  belong  to  "  Mass  Alic,"  while  in  his  popularity  and  suc 
cess  they  feel  as  much  interest  as  if  they  were  of  his  kindred. 


232  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

In  Mr.  Stephens'  collection  of  photographs,  are  some  fine 
views,  recently  taken,  of  both  his  birthplace  and  his  village 
home.  Of  the  former,  by  the  way,  only  the  hearth-stones  re 
main  on  the  spot.  Among  the  home  views,  are  two  groups  of 
his  family  negroes,  which  he  much  prizes.  One  of  them  is  of 
his  old  servants,  "Uncle  Dick"  and  "Aunt  Mat,"  or  Eichard  and 
Martha.  We  regret  our  inability  to  reproduce  them  among 
the  home  engravings  of  this  book. 

He  never  bought  any  negroes  save  at  their  own  earnest  re 
quest,  for  the  accommodation  of  themselves  and  families. 
These  two  were  bought  in  that  way,  and  for  many  years  before 
the  war  were  comfortably  supported,  without  rendering  any 
service  in  return.  "  Uncle  Dick"  is  now  about  eighty  years 
old,  and  his  wife  "Martha"  about  seventy.  They  still  have  all 
their  wants  supplied  by  him,  from  whose  door  the  needy, 
whether  white  or  black,  never  went  away  empty.  He  supports 
and  provides  for  another  pensioner  ("  Uncle  Ben")  down  at  the 
old  homestead. 

We  could  fill  many  pages  with  stories  and  reminiscences  of 
him,  which  his  servants  delight  in  telling  to  strangers — some 
of  kindness,  some  of  benevolence,  some  of  humor — but  this  bio 
graphical  sketch  is  already  swelling  beyond  its  intended  limits. 

In  social  qualities  Mr.  Stephens  shines  without  intention  or 
effort.  His  kind,  genial  face  wins  its  way  at  once  to  the  heart, 
and  the  stranger  guest,  approaching  the  great  Georgian  with 
reverential  awe,  finds  himself  exchanging  witticisms,  reminis 
cences,  and  anecdotes  with  a  happy  looking  school-boy,  who 
has  a  wrinkled  face  and  wonderful  eyes.  At  the  dinner -table, 
with  a  pet  dog  or  two  awaiting  notice  and  scraps  from  the 
table ;  with  fat  negro  children  looking  into  the  door  or  boldly 
entering  for  the  "  bread  and  butter,"  which  they  like  best  from 
his  hands ;  with  no  inspiration  but  cold  water  or  creamy  milk ; 
thus  minutes  lengthen  into  hours,  as  he  tells  of  the  fellow  im 
mortals  who,  with  him,  strode  across  the  boards  of  the  nation's 
great  stage ;  of  the  polished  but  harmless  wit  that  irradiated  the 


ALEXANDEK   H.   STEPHENS.  233 

Georgia  bar  in  its  meridian  days ;  of  the  noble  deeds  that  others 
have  done  ;  of  the  grand  thoughts  that  have  fallen  from  other 
lips,  and  of  the  great  and  holy  purposes  that  still,  like  the  ashes 
of  flowers,  breathe  fragrance  around  the  altars  of  our  eommon 
country.  His  prime  was  among  those,  who  in  other  days  would 
have  been  assigned  places  in  the  constellations,  or  been  deified 
upon  mythological  altars ;  men  who  have  made  their  country's 
best  history  and  glory.  As  his  genial  eloquence  spreads  out 
the  intellectual  scenery  of  the  western  world  in  its  noontide 
hour,  the  guest  forgets  that  one  of  the  mightiest  actors  of  the 
drama  is  the  modest  gentleman  sitting  by  his  side. 

Yet,  in  his  gayest  humor,  Mr.  Stephens  seldom  tells  a  story 
or  an  anecdote,  but  in  illustration  of  truth  in  fact  or  philosophy. 
On  the  hustings  the  shafts  of  his  keen  wit  play  like  the  light 
nings,  and  the  convulsed  laughter  or  irrepressible  shout  of  the 
audience,  is  the  evidence  that  the  splendid  flash  went  with  the 
thunderbolt  that  consumed  his  opponent.  In  brief,  whether  in 
social  qualities,  brilliant  wit,  convincing  eloquence,  womanly 
kindness,  or  delicate  and  unobtrusive  sympathy,  he  has  few 
equals  and,  perhaps,  no  superiors. 

Mr.  Stephens  is  a  man  of  extensive  reading  and  varied  acquire 
ments.  He  is  fond  of  books  of  science,  travel,  philosophy,  and 
history,  but  in  theology  has  but  one  text-book,  the  little  Bible 
that  is  always  by  him  on  the  small  table.  Few  divines  are 
more  familiar  with  its  sacred  text  than  he.  He  reads  the  better 
works  of  Victor  Hugo,  Dickens,  and  others  like  them,  and  the 
works  of  all  the  great  masters  in  prose  or  verse.  His  favorite 
poets  are  Milton,  Shakespeare,  Pope,  Byron,  Burns,  and  Gray. 

He  says  that  Burns'  short  poem  addressed  to  a  "  young 
friend,"  contains  more  true  ethics  and  real  chivalry  than  is 
to  be  found  in  whole  tomes  of  volumes  written  upon  the  same 
subject.  In  his  speeches  at  the  bar  before  mentioned,  he  often 
quotes  with  wonderful  effect  from  his  favorite  poets.  We  have 
said  but  little  of  his  speeches  at  the  bar,  because  they  were  all 
entirely  extemporaneous,  and  were  never  reported.  "We  have 


234  ALEXANDER   H.    STEPHENS. 

some  vivid  descriptions  of  some  of  them  by  those  who  heard 
them,  but  want  of  space  forbids  their  introduction.  In  one  of 
these,  in  the  county  of  Green,  on  the  trial  of  a  woman,  poor, 
desolate,  and  unable  to  employ  counsel,  and  for  whom  Mr. 
Stephens  appeared  without  fee  or  reward,  his  quotation  of 
the  lines  from  Burns  beginning  with — • 

"  Then  gently  scan  your  brother  man, 
Stitt  gentler  sister,  ivoman,  etc." 

can  never  be  forgotten  by  those  who  heard  it.  The  whole 
speech  was  electrical.  The  court-room  at  first  filled  with 
mirth,  soon  became  grave,  and  then  melted  to  tears.  The 
evidence  against  his  client  being  strong,  though  circumstantial, 
was  not  deemed  positive ;  an  acquittal  was  the  result.  Judge 
Harris,  who  presided,  in  giving  an  account  of  this  wonderful 
speech,  says  to  the  author  : 

"  This  was  the  only  case,  either  civil  or  criminal,  tried  before 
me  whilst  on  the  bench  of  the  Superior  Court,  in  which  my 
admonitions  were  unheeded  by  the  jury." 

Few  men  have  his  power  of  swaying  an  audience  with  a  few 
simple  words,  whether  his  own  or  borrowed. 

One  reason  of  the  early  and  brilliant  success  at  the  bar,  of 
which  we  have  before  spoken,  was  the  fixed  rule  he  adopted  of 
never  taking  a  case  until  it  was  thoroughly  examined,  and  he 
was  satisfied  that  the  suitor  applying  for  redress  was  entitled 
to  it  under  the  law.  He  has  never  made  a  charge  for  advice 
or  legal  opinion  since  his  admission  to  the  bar;  never  bringing 
a  case  without  being  perfectly  conversant  with  the  law  affecting 
it,  and  having,  as  he  supposed,  the  right  on  his  side,  he  seldom 
failed  in  the  end.  He  was  never  non-suited  in  a  case  in  his 
life.  He  has  defended  many  people  charged  with  capital 
offences,  and  some  have  been  found  guilty  and  sentenced  to 
death ;  but  he  has  always  succeeded  in  getting  new  trials  in 
the  court  below,  or  the  Supreme  Court,  thereby  securing  final 
acquittal  or  a  mitigation  of  punishment.  None  were  ever 


ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS.  235 

executed,  in  all  his  vast  practice  of  thirty-two  years.  His 
usual  course  was  not  to  appear  against  any  person  charged  with 
an  offence  involving  life,  and  in  no  case  did  he  ever  do  so, 
unless  satisfied  beyond  doubt,  not  only  of  guilt,  but  that  there 
were  no  mitigating  circumstances. 

On  several  occasions,  where  parties  were  likely  to  become 
victims  of  popular  prejudice,  he  has  volunteered,  and  saved  the 
accused.  In  his  own  county,  some  years  since,  he  saw  that  a 
slave  woman  was  about  to  be  convicted  of  an  attempt  to  murder 
by  poisoning.  The  evidence  before  the  judge  and  jury  was 
very  strong,  but  all  circumstantial.  He,  however,  became  con 
vinced  of  her  innocence,  and  volunteered  in  her  defence. 
Before  he  closed,  the  judge  and  audience  were  well  satisfied  of 
the  same.  The  jury  were  out  but  a  short  time,  and  when  they 
returned  with  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  it  was  received  with  gen 
eral  satisfaction.  The  woman  still  lives,  and  often  visits  Lib 
erty  Hall,  to  testify  her  gratitude  to  him  whom  she  regards  as, 
under  Providence,  her  preserver. 

The  establishment  at  Liberty  Hall,  since  Mr.  Stephens'  re 
turn  from  Fort  Warren,  is  kept  up  just  as  it  was  before  the 
war.  No  change  is  observable  in  any  particular.  Harry  Ste 
phens,  the  faithful  servant,  who  nursed  him  in  some  of  his 
severest  illnesses,  and  who  has  so  long  been  his  major-domo,  is 
still  there,  with  his  wife  Eliza  and  their  children,  five  in  num 
ber.  The  oldest  is  a  girl  named  Ellen,  fifteen  years  old,  and  a 
son  Timothy,  or  Tim  as  he  is  called,  a  boy  about  twelve. 
These,  with  the  smaller  ones,  constitute  the  household  servants. 
George  is  the  assistant  gardener.  The  two  old  people  we 
have  spoken  of  before.  They  all  stayed,  and  took  good  care 
of  the  premises  while  the  loved  and  honored  proprietor  was  a 
prisoner.  The  routine  of  business  has  not  changed,  and  while 
Mr.  Stephens  pays  them  wages,  which  they  spend  for  clothing 
and  things  they  need  or  want,  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
expense  to  him  or  comfort  to  them.  The  comfortable  cottages 
in  the  yard,  still  open  to  the  breeze  that  steals  under  the 


236  ALEXANDEK   H.    STEPHENS. 

shadows  of  the  giant  trees  in  summer,  or  glow  with  the  huge 
fires  of  the  winter ;  but  all  the  time  reveal  the  bright  eyes, 
and  dark- brown  skins,  and  white  teeth  of  the  occupants.  The 
children  take  learning  in  broken  doses — that  is,  they  study 
a  very  little,  and  play  a  great  deal. 

The  only  regular  inmate  of  the  house  with  Mr.  Stephens,  is 
John  Alexander  Stephens,  his  nephew,  a  son  of  his  half  brother, 
John  L.  Stephens,  deceased.  This  young  gentleman  is  engaged 
very  successfully  in  the  practice  of  the  law,  with  a  fair  pros 
pect  of  inheriting  the  fame  and  reputation  of  his  uncle.  He 
has  charge  of  Mr.  Stephens'  library  and  papers.  To  him  we 
are  much  indebted  in  the  finding,  arranging,  and  preparing  the 
matter  of  this  book,  where  there  was  such  a  mass  of  material 
to  be  condensed  into  so  little  space.  Professor  Eichard  M. 
Johnston,  of  Georgia,  who,  we  understand,  intends  to  prepare  a 
much  larger  work  than  this,  has  also  kindly  given  us  access 
to  some  valuable  papers.  He  had  charge  of  all  Mr.  Stephens' 
most  valued  correspondence  during  the  imprisonment  in  Fort 
Warren. 

Amongst  Mr.  Stephens'  peculiarities,  which  should  not  be 
omitted  even  in  this  outline,  is  his  fondness  for  dogs.  In  this 
he  resembles  Sir  Walter  Scott  and  Henry  Clay.  In  the  earlier 
part  of  this  work  we  referred  to  Troup  Frank,  and  Sir  Bingo 
Binks,  his  present  pets,  and  also  to  the  departed  Kio,  his  great 
est  favorite  in  this  line.  This  wonderful  dog  was  his  com 
panion  for  twelve  years.  When  he  died,  not  long  since,  from 
the  infirmities  of  old  age,  he  was  buried  as  we  have  said  in  the 
garden.  It  is  Mr.  Stephens'  intention  to  erect  a  marble  slab  to 
Rio's  memory,  with  the  inscription  which  his  brother,  Hon. 
Linton  Stephens,  prepared  soon  after  his  death ;  and  which  we 
quoted  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  biographical  sketch. 

It  is  said  that  the  words  in  Webster's  Bunker  Hill  speech, 
addressed  to  the  Marquis  Lafayette,  who  was  present — "  You 
are  connected  with  two  hemispheres,  and  two  generations !" — 
were  but  a  paraphrase  of  an  exclamation  addressed  by  him  to 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 


237 


w 


R  i  o 


a  magnificent  trophy  of  his  hook  and  line,  as  he  raised  it  from 
the  water  in  one  of  his  wonted  angling  excursions,  for  relaxa 
tion  and  recreation.  Washington  Irving,  in  his  life  of  Gold 
smith,  traces  two  of  the  most  beautiful  lines  in  the  Traveller  to 
quite  as  curious  an  origin.  He  says :  "  We  hear  much  about 
poetic  inspiration,  and  'the  poet's  eye  in  fine  phrenzy  rolling.' 
But  Sir  Joshua  Eeynolds  gives  an  anecdote'of  Goldsmith,  while 
engaged  upon  tlys  poem,  that  is  calculated  to  change  our 
notions  about  the  ardor  of  composition. 

"  Calling  upon  the  poet  one  day,  he  opened  the  door  without 
ceremony,  and  discovered  him  in  the  double  occupation  of 
turning  a  couplet,  and  teaching  a  pet  dog  to  set  on  his  haunches. 
At  one  time  he  would  glance  his  eye  at  his  desk,  and  at  another 
shake  his  finger  at  the  dog,  to  make  him  retain  his  position. 
The  last  lines  on  the  page  before  him  were  still  wet.  They 
form  a  part  of  the  description  of  Italy : 


238  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

"  'By  sports  like  these,  are  all  their  cares  beguiled, 
The  sports  of  children  satisfy  the  child.' 

"  Goldsmith,  with  his  usual  good-humor,  joined  in  the  laugh, 
caused  by  his  whimsical  employment,  and  acknowledged  that 
his  boyish  sport  with  the  dog  originated  the  stanzas." 

Whether  he,  of  whom  we  write,  drew  any  of  his  inspira 
tions  or  illustrations  from  similar  sources,  we  know  not ;  but 
if  the  half  of  what  we  have  heard  be  true,  Goldsmith  never 
took  more  child-like  recreation  with  his  canine  pet  than  did 
Kio's  master  with  him.  The  first  thing  in  the  morning,  upon 
rising  and  issuing  forth,  was  a  jolly  frolic  with  his  dog.  Eio 
always  slept  in  the  same  room  with  him,  and  when  the  master 
was  ill  and  confined  to  his  bed,  the  faithful  brute  was  never 
out  of  the  room,  save  for  a  few  moments  at  a  time,  for  days 
and  weeks  together.  He  accompanied  his  master  almost  every 
where  he  went  except  to  Washington  City,  He  was  as  well 
known  on  the  railroads  throughout  the  State  as  the  statesman 
himself,  and  we  have  heard  much,  gravely  told,  of  the  sagacity, 
or  rather  sense,  of  this  animal,  which  would  be  hardly  credible 
to  many  readers.  All  that  Youatt  says  of  the  poodle  as  a 
species  is  said  of  this  specimen,  and  much  more.  He  would 
close  a  door  quickly  and  quietly  upon  being  told,  or  bring  a 
hat,  cane,  or  umbrella  from  another  room  upon  a  like  com 
mand.  He  not  only  knew  the  names  of  all  the  household,  but 
actually  seemed  to  understand  the  subject-matter  of  conversa 
tion.  When  orders  were  given  by  his  master  to  have  his 
trunk  brought  out  to  go  anywhere,  Rio  dad  not  need  the 
appearance  of  the  article  to  manifest  his  understanding  and 
readiness  to  go.  When  sometimes  left  behind,  he  would  go  to 
the  depot  frequently  on  the  arrival  of  the  trains,  and  if  his 
master  did  not  get  out  would  go  through  all  the  cars  looking 
for  him,  and  if  not  found,  return  home  to  await  the  next  day's 
train.  The  conductors  all  knew  him,  and  what  he  was  about ; 
and  if,  as  sometimes  happened,  he  did  not  get  through  his 
search  before  the  cars  started,  the  train  was  stopped  for  him  to 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  239 

get  out.  When  the  master  happened  to  return  by  any  other 
conveyance,  a  servant  had  only  to  say,  "Kio,  Mas'  Alex's 
come !"  and  the  dog  bounded  off  with  all  possible  speed  to  wel 
come  and  literally  embrace  him.  His  joy  was  manifested  not 
only  by  putting  his  great  paws  on  his  breast,  but  by  loud  and 
protracted  barking.  Eeturn  from  an  absence  was  always  An 
nounced  to  the  village  by  the  well-understood  signal  of  Bio's 
Urk. 

Thus  far  has  our  little  sketch  lengthened  out  beyond  the 
first  intention,  and  in  it  we  have  often  preferred  to  give  the 
thoughts  of  eminent  Americans  rather  than  our  own ;  while 
instead  of  merely  saying  that  thus  and  at  such  a  time  and  place 
Mr.  Stephens  was  eloquent,  to  give  his  own  words.  Of  his 
manner,  the  Promethean  fire — given,  not  stolen — we  can  give 
no  written  adequate  description. 

His  real  history  during  the  war  that  he  tried  to  prevent, 
cannot  be  written,  for  it  is  only  at  the  firesides  of  the  land  that 
it  is  known.  He  had  taken  high  place  without  power,  only  in 
the  hope  of  leading  the  new  government  from  war  to  peace. 
He  was  best  known  in  the  hospitals  and  by  the  beds  of  soldiers. 
At  the  great  departments,  he  was  known  as  the  quiet  helper  of 
petitions  for  the  sick  and  the  wounded  soldier,  whether  friend  or 
foe,  the  advocate  of  liberty  for  prisoners,  or  bringer  of  comfort 
and  sympathy,  when  he  could  do  nothing  more.  Trying 
always  in  every  way  he  could  to  moderate  the  storm  he  could 
not  stay  ;  to  heal  the  wounds  he  could  not  prevent. 

As  he  states  in  his  letter  to  Senator  H.  V.  Johnson,  he  lives 
always  with  eternity  in  view ;  he  has  long  since  learned  to 
look  calmly  through  the  mists  of  the  river  of  death ;  and,  per 
haps,  in  the  hush  of  his  little  room,  when,  beneath  the  starry 
midnight  of  his  southern  skies,  he  lies,  with  no  companionship 
but  his  own  habitual  suffering,  he  has  learned  to  listen  unmoved 
for  the  phantom  oar  of  the  boatman  pale,  who  ferries  souls  across 
the  Stygian  flood. 

With  an  existence  which  is  often  like  that  of  the  "  Man  of 


240  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

Uz,"  he  bears  the  ills  of  life  and  complains  not,  but  suffers  and 
grows  strong.  We  would  not  compare  any  human  being  to 
HIM  "  who  was  made  perfect  through  suffering,"  but  the  man 
we  write  of  humbly  follows — 

"  That  path  of  our  ascended  Chief, 
»  Whose  radiant  footsteps  lead  to  Heaven  and  God." 

It  is  always  a  difficult  and  delicate  task  to  write  of  the  living 
good,  even  when 

"  The  earth  looks  greener  where  their  feet  have  trod, 
And  men  have  hailed  them  as  the  blessed  of  God." 

The  praise  that  properly  and  worthily  crowns  the  tomb  with 
immortelles,  sounds  like  flattery  in  living  ears.  Mr.  Toombs 
once  said  of  Mr.  Stephens :  "  He  would  not  flatter  Neptune  for 
his  trident,  nor  Jove  for  his  power  to  thunder ;"  and  while  we 
would  fain  have  suck  the  truth  of  us,  yet  to  speak  of  one  of  the 
greatest  living  orators  and  statesman  without  praise,  would  be 
to  learn  the  eloquence  of  silence.  As  a  public  man,  we  may 
apply  to  him  the  saying  of  the  Greeks :  "  What  Themistocles 
was  to  the  rest  of  the  Athenians  in  acute  foresight,  wisdom,  and 
vigor,  Aristides  was  to  every  statesman  in  Greece,  in  incom 
parable  purity  and  integrity  of  public  life;  and  no  one  has 
dared  to  dispute  his  well  won  title  of  THE  JUST." 

Doubtless  the  severe  ordeal  of  Mr.  Stephens'  boyhood,  and 
the  sufferings  of  his  manhood,  have  had  much  to  do  with  per 
fecting  the  character  which  we  thus  unhesitatingly  present  as  a 
model  for  the  youth  of  America.  Well  may  Shakespeare  say, 

"  Sweet  are  the  uses  of  adversity, 
Which,  like  a  toad,  ugly  and  venomous, 
Yet  wears  a  precious  jewel  in  his  head." 

In  his  energy,  his  triumph  over  poverty,  ignorance,  and  in 
firmity,  his  private  and  public  usefulness,  and  his  unquestioned 
morality,  his  example,  like  that  of  all  other  good  men,  seems 
to  say : 


ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS.  241 

"  So  live,  that  when  thy  summons  comes  to  join 
The  innumerable  caravan,  which  moves 
To  that  mysterious  realm  where  each  shall  take 
His  chamber  in  the  silent  halls  of  death  ; 
Thou  go  not,  like  the  quarry  slave  at  night, 
Scourged  to  his  dungeon,  but  sustained  and  soothed 
By  an  unfaltering  trust,  approach  thy  grave 
Like  one  who  wraps  the  drapery  of  his  couch 
Around  him,  and  lies  down  to  pleasant  dreams." 

His  noblest  deeds  are  in  keeping  with  the  precept,  "Let  not 
thy  right  hand  know  what  thy  left  hand  doeth,"  and  it  is  no 
purpose  of  ours  to  lift  the  vail  which  modest  merit  and  Chris 
tian  charity  draws  over  its  holy  ministrations.  Such  things 
are  laid  up  and  numbered  in  the  granaries  of  the  stars,  where 
there  are  no  prisons  and  no  sickness — where  all  men  "  love  one 
another,"  and  the  nations  learn  war  no  more. 

When  the  holy  labors  of  the  Universe  are  reckoned  up, 
perhaps  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead  will  say  unto 
him,  "  Insomuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  the  least  of  these,  my  disci 
ples,  ye  did  unto  me." 

Perhaps  there  never  was  a  heart  in  more  perfect  accord  with 
the  great  popular  heart,  and  hence  in  full  sympathy  with 
human  nature,  than  his.  There  is  said  to  be  an  universal  har 
mony  and  accord  of  all  things,  from  God  the  soul  of  things, 
and  that  order  which  creates  the  fancied  music  of  the  spheres, 
down  through  all  us  his  children,  and  all  ranks  of  animate  and 
inanimate  creation.  Thus  the  throb  of  life  in  the  animalcule 
is  but  the  far,  faint  echo  of  the  parent  life  in  God. 

It  is  thus  that  the  skilled  interpreter  of  those  inspirations  of 
right  drawn  from  the  "  Light  that  lighteneth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world,"  may  without  blasphemy,  exclaim  of 
the  voice  of  the  great  popular  heart,  "Vox  Populi!  Vox  Dei!" 
"  The  voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God."  It  was  thus,  in 
the  Oregon  speech,  that  Mr.  Stephens  spoke  of  the  politics  of 
"  good- will  toward  men." 

It  is  true  that  he  who  can  read  these  vera  voces  ab  imo  pectorse 
16 


242  ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 

must  always  stand  armed  to  repel  the  adoring  instinct  of 
humanity,  that  is  prone  to  shout — :"  It  is  the  voice  of  a  God 
and  not  of  a  man,"  lest,  as  in  the  case  of  Herod,  the  Lord  smite 
the  pretender  and  he.  be  eaten  of  worms  and  give  up  the  ghost., 

It  is  this  sympathy  with  mankind,  which  renders  Mr. 
Stephens  as  accessible  and  approachable  as  any  man  who  ever 
lived,  and  enables  him  to  wisely  and  judiciously  aid  those 
whom  he  never  refuses  to  see  and  converse  with.  In  this 
reading  of  human  nature,  in  all  its  shades,  there  must  be  much 
of  that  strange  rapture  which  Washington  Irving  tells  of  in 
those  Magii  of  the  Alhambra,  who  could  interpret  the  voices 
of  the  air  and  forest,  and  understand  the  words  of  birds.  Ste 
phens  is  neither  Magician,  Rosi- Crucian,  nor  Gheber,  yet  his 
soul  can  arise  to  the  unutterable  grandeur  of  the  universe,  as 
nature  or  science  opens  God's  great  book  at  a  page  of  stars,  or 
the  "  Testimony  of  the  Eocks ;"  or  stoop  with  delight,  with 
finger  on  the  popular  pulse — not  thereby  to  arrange  his  own, 
but  with  physician  instinct  which  seeks  to  hasten  or  retard,  to 
stimulate  or  soothe,  to  know  and  to  cure. 

Stephens  is  one  of  the  poets  who  never  sing,  and  can/ee?  if 
not  say — 

"  To  me  the  meanest  flower  that  blows  can  give 
Thoughts  that  do  often  lie  too  deep  for  tears." 

He  has  suffered  much.  He  endures  with  the  fortitude  of  an 
Indian,  and  when  health  returns  and  pain  is  over,  no  bird  "re 
joicing  with  its  wings,"  has  more  full  consciousness  of  the 
blessedness  of  being  the  mere  rapture  of  existence.  May  the 
God  of  the  good  long  continue  his  honest,  earnest,  faithful  life ; 
and  may  the  unselfish  labor  for  individuals  and  for  his  whole 
country,  bear  fruit  many  days  hence,  even  lik.e  that  seed  sown 
in  faith  when  the  yellow  flood  of  the  Nile  gives  Egypt's  breast 
its  annual  baptism.  When  he  shall  depart — not  die — 

"  The  honored  gods 

Keep  Rome  in  safety,  and  the  chairs  of  justice 
Supplied  with  worthy  men." 


ALEXANDEK  H.   STEPHENS.  243 

Since  1860  the  writer  of  these  pages  has  often  been  at  Liberty 
Hall,  enjoying  fts  books,  its  quiet,  and  its  hospitality.  There 
fore,  this  long  talk  on  paper  has  seemed  like  re-gathering  the 
memories  of  home,  and  the  pages  have  become  leaves  in  a 
chaplet  of  pleasant  recollections.  In  closing,  the  feeling  that 
he  has  not  said  enough  is  blended  with  the  fear  that  he  has 
not  said  the  little  well.  Then,  in  bidding  good-by  to  the  sub 
ject,  there  is  much  of  the  same  sensation  as  when  departing 
from  the  roof-shelter  beneath  which  so  much  kindness  dwells, 
and  grasping  the  extended  hand  of  the  statesman,  while  the 
lips  utter  parting  words.  The  manuscript  and  the  subject  be 
come  interwoven,  but  we  must  leave  for  awhile  our  Georgia 
home,  and  the  Man  and  the  Book. 


Good-by,  kind  friend,  a  long  good-by, 
Perhaps  our  earthly  path  will  sever, 

Until  the  ways  of  all  converge 
Upon  eternal  shores  forever. 

Past  life's  mid-day  your  years  have  gone, 
While  mine  are  climbing  manhood's  noon ; 

Both  afternoons  come  fast  enough — 
And  night ;  God  only  knows  how  soon. 

Yet  while  the  sun  of  life  remains, 
Poised  in  the  sky  of  time's  brief  day, 

May  Earth's  Inspector  find  some  deed 
Of  both,  that  will  not  pass  away. 

Not  in  the  nation's  archives  he — 
Nor  in  the  scroll  of  fame  will  look ; 

But  where  the  record  angel  spreads, 
Above  the  stars,  his  mighty  book. 

Not  how  illustrious,  nor  who  praised, 
Nor  when  the  Senate's  plaudits  rung ; 

Nor  marble  shone,  nor  canvas  glowed, 
Nor  what  the  Western  bards  have  sung. 


244  ALEXANDER  H.   STEPHENS. 

Poor  trophies  these  to  offer,  when 

The  eternal  gates  of  pearl  unroll ;  % 

And  God  the  Judge  shall  ask  of  Time 
The  record  of  a  naked  soul. 

But  when,  'mid  prostrate  angel  ranks, 
Your  soul  and  mine  shall  meet  again : 

The  Son  may  answer  to  his  Sire, 

"  These  men  have  loved  their  fellow-men." 

No  holier  epitaph  hath  glowed 
Upon  earth's  long  historic  page  ; 

And  Love,  the  dearest  name  of  God, 
Is  crown  alike  for  saint  or  sage. 

Continue  then  those  humble  deeds, 
Which  only  God  and  angels  know ; 

And  thou  shalt  find  their  fruit  at  last, 
When  time's  "  last  thunders"  peal  below. 

I  envy  not  thy  statesman  crown, 
Nor  music  of  thy  magic  tongue ; 

Nor  all  the  laurels  ever  won, 
Since  man  hath  wrote  or  poet  sung : 

But  I  would  tell  the  world  thy  deeds 
Till  children  emulous  became  ; 

And  Christian  statesmen  keep  through  time, 
The  goodness  of  the  Stephens  name. 

Thou  hast  nor  wife,  nor  child  to  take 
Thy  mantle  as  thou  leavest  earth ; 

But  children's  children  studying  thee, 
May  still  perpetuate  thy  worth. 

Bright  be  thy  setting  orb  of  life, 
Flower-strewn  and  green  thy  final  sod ; 

The  future  grant  her  great  rewards 
Beyond  the  sun  and  stars,  with  God. 


END  OF  THE  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH, 


SPEECHES,   LETTERS,  ETC, 


REPORT    OF    THE   MINORITY   OF   THE    COMMITTEE 
ON   THE    STATE    OF   THE    REPUBLIC. 

GEORGIA  SENATE,  1842. 

THE  undersigned,  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of 
the  Republic,  (to  whom  was  referred  so  much  of  the  Message  of 
His  Excellency  the  Governor,  as  relates  to  the  Preamble  and  Re 
solutions  of  the  last  Legislature,  transmitted  to  the  Senators  of 
this  State  in  Congress,  and  the  Address  of  the  Hon.  John  M. 
Berrien,  one  of  those  Senators,  to  the  people  of  Georgia;)  differing 
so  materially  from  the  majority  of  the  Committee  in  their  views 
upon  the  several  subjects  referred  to  in  their  Report  and  Reso 
lutions,  beg  leave  respectfully,  and  as  briefly  as  the  circumstances 
will  admit,  to  state  the  points  of  difference  between  them,  and  the 
reasons  of  their  dissent  from  the  conclusions  of  the  majority.  In 
doing  this,  they  do  not  intend  to  travel  over  all  the  grounds  oc 
cupied  by  the  Preamble  and  Resolutions  adopted  at  the  last  ses 
sion,  or  to  discuss  the  various  principles  therein  embraced,  but 
will  confine  themselves  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  limits  of  the 
Report  and  Resolutions  submitted  by  the  present  majority — nor 
do  they  feel  any  disposition  to  enter  into  the  merits  of  the  con 
troversy  between  His  Excellency  and  Senator  Berrien,  or  to  de 
cide  which  is  most  chargeable  with  a  breach  of  official  decorum. 
It  seems,  however,  that  His  Excellency  was  no  less  hasty  than 
sensitive,  in  declaring  that  the  Senator  had  declined  a  reply  to 
"his  own  constituents,"  but  in  an  Address  to  "his,"  the  people 
of  Georgia,  "had  been  pleased  to  arraign  his  conduct."  The  un 
dersigned  think  that  no  disrespect  or  arraignment  of  His  Excel 
lency  was  intended  by  the  Senator  in  any  thing  contained  in  his 
Address.  It  is  true,  that  he  assigns  as  a  reason  for  his  not  re 
plying  immediately  to  the  Legislature  by  whom  the  resolutions 
were  passed,  that  he  did  not  receive  them  "until  after  its  adjourn 
ment."  But  a  bare  reference  to  the  paper,  will  show  that  he  does 
not  lay  this  to  the  charge  of  the  Governor.  His  language  is,  that 
"if  it  had  been  in  the  power  of  His  Excellency,  and  it  had  been 
agreeable  to  him  to  have  forwarded  the  documents  to  me  while 
the  Legislature  was  yet  in  session,  my  respect  for  its  authors 

(245) 


246       REPORT  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

would  have  induced  a  prompt  reply."  In  this  there  is  certainly 
no  arraignment,  or  censure  of  any  person  whatever,  but  the  sim 
ple  declaration  of  the  reason  why  the  Address  was  not  made 
promptly,  and  to  the  Legislature,  with  a  clear  implication  that 
the  cause  of  the  delay  was  neither  in  the  power  or  control  of  the 
Executive.  But  whether  the  Governor  has  been  equally  courteous 
in  his  course  toward  the  Honorable  Senator,  we  leave  for  others 
to  determine. 

The  undersigned  cannot  agree  with  His  Excellency,  or  the  ma 
jority  of  the  Committee,  in  the  idea,  thafr  the  Members  of  the 
Legislature  are  the  proper  "  Constituents"  of  the  Senators  in 
Congress.  It  is  true,  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  they  elect  them ;  but  in  doing  this,  they  act  themselves  in 
a  representative  capacity.  Constituent  and  Representative,  we 
hold  to  be  correlative  terms.  The  Constituent  is  one  whose 
rights  and  interests,  to  some  extent,  are  confided  or  entrusted  to 
another :  that  other,  to  whom  such  rights  and  interests  are  so 
confided  or  entrusted,  is  the  Representative.  The  members  of 
the  Legislature,  in  electing  a  United  States'  Senator,  are  but 
exercising  a  delegated  trust.  That  trust  is  limited  in  its  extent, 
specific  in  its  nature,  and  ceases  with  its  execution.  The  appoint 
ment  is  only  made  through  them  by  their  own  constituents ;  and 
the  Senators,  when  so  chosen,  represent  them  or  their  interests 
no  more  than  any  other  equal  number  of  the  citizens  of  the  State. 
Nor  are  they  any  more  responsible,  or  amenable  to  them,  than 
any  other  like  portion  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  The  fact,  that 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  of  the  respective  States,  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  are  made  the  Electors  of 
Senators  to  Congress,  in  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  no  more 
makes  them  the  "Constituents"  of  the  Senators,  than  that  the 
election  of  President  and  Yice  President  of  the  United  States, 
being  made  by  Electors  chosen  in  the  respective  States,  accord 
ing  to  the  provisions  of  the  same  Constitution,  make  such  Elect 
ors  the  Constituents  of  these  highest  and  most  important  officers 
of  the  Government.  The  cases,  for  illustration,  are  sufficiently 
analogous,  and  the  principles  applicable  to  one  must  be  to  the 
other.  If  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States  are  the  "  Consti 
tuents"  of  the  Senators,  then  the  Colleges  of  the  Electors  in  the 
same  States  are  the  only  "  Constituents  "  of  the  President  and 
Yice  President  of  the  United  States;  and  the  same  doctrine  of 
instruction,  of  course,  would  apply;  for  if  applicable  in  one  case, 
why  not  in  the  other  ?  And  with  this  construction,  what  would 
be  the  result  of  our  entire  system  of  political  organization  ?  It 
would  only  be  necessary  for  the  Electors  in  each  of  the  States  to 
meet,  and  by  their  instructions,  to  remove  from  office  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  the  country  at  every  ebb  and  flow  of  party  feeling, 
or  change  in  popular  opinion.  But  the  undersigned  do  not  so 
understand  the  Constitution;  nor  do  they  believe  it  was  so  under 
stood  by  its  framers  or  first  expounders.  They  hold  that  the 


REPORT   OX  THE   STATE   OF   THE   REPUBLIC. 

PEOPLE  of  the  States,  and  not  the  Legislatures,  are  the  "Con 
stituents"  of  Senators  in  Congress,  and  that  the  People  of  the 
United  States  and  not  the  Electors  are  the  "  Constituents"  of  the 
President  and  Yice  President  of  the  Union.  This  was  certainly 
the  opinion  of  WASHINGTON,  who,  in  one  of  his  earliest  Messages 
to  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
Congress,  spoke  of  the  People  of  the  country  as  being  his  and 
their  common  "Constituents."  Had  he  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
Governor,  or  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  he  could  not  have 
looked  further  or  beyond  the  Electors,  "the  body  from  whom  he 
derived  his  office,"  in 'referring  to  his  Constituents.  The  major 
ity  of  the  Committee  say,  that  "the  Legislature  has  no  power  to 
compel  a  Senator  to  resign;  but  the  theory  of  a  Representative 
Government,  and  the  delicate  connection  between  the  Constituent 
and  Representative,  imperiously  demand,  that  whenever  he  ceases 
to  subserve  the  object  of  his  appointment,  he  should  at  once  sur 
render  the 'delegated  trust — and  tested  by  this  plain  and  obvious 
rule,  Mr.  Berrien  will  utterly  defeat  the  end  and  design  of  a  Rep 
resentative  Government,  should  he  continue  to  retain  the  office 
of  Senator  in  Congress."  Now,  what  peculiar  opinions  the  ma 
jority  may  entertain  of  the  theory  of  a  Representative  Govern 
ment,  by  which  they  arrive  at  the  conclusion  stated,  the  under 
signed  are  wholly  unable  to  imagine ;  and  as  those  theoretical 
views  are  not  given,  the  premises  from  which  the  deductions  are 
drawn,  being  unknown,  the  legitimacy  of  the  conclusion  must,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  remain  a  subject  of  mere  speculation.  The 
undersigned,  however,  in  arguing  such  a  question,  would  state, 
that  they  recognize  no  principles  or  premises  from  which  to  start, 
but  such  as  are  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  country. 
And  taking  this  as  their  rule  and  standard,  and  confining  them 
selves  in  their  inquiries  strictly  within  its  plainly  written  and 
well  defined  provisions,  they  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  majority  is  altogether  erroneous.  If  the  majority  have 
any  other  theory  than  that  of  the  Constitution,  the  undersigned 
beg  leave  to  say  that  they  are  not  its  advocates.  They  know  of 
but  one  code  of  principles  governing  the  question,  and  they  are 
to  be  found  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Union — the  great  chart 
of  our  Representative  Government.  The  minority  take  it  for 
granted,  that  what  is  meant  in  the  Report  by  the  expression, 
"when  a  Senator  ceases  to  subserve  the  object  of  his  appoint 
ment,"  is,  when  he  ceases  to  effect  or  carry  out  the  wishes  of  those 
whom  the  majority  are  pleased  to  call  his  Constituents;  or,  in 
other  words,  to  conform  to  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  Legis 
lature.  With  this  understanding,  it  seems  only  necessary  to 
compare  the  proposition  with  the  principles  assumed,  as  the 
standard  to  render  its  fallacy  apparent  to  all.  Ours  is  a  Govern 
ment  founded  upon  compact.  Its  principles  and  powers  are  so  well 
and  clearly  defined  in  the  instrument  of  its  creation,  as  to  leave 
but  little  latitude  for  theory  in  its  construction.  Nor  are  the 


24:8      REPORT  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

duties,  obligations,  and  responsibilities  of  those  who  officiate  in 
its  administration,  less  distinctly  marked ;  and  the  provisions  of 
all  which,  as  well  the  powers  granted,  as  the  mode  and  manner 
of  their  execution,  were  wisely  adjusted,  with  proper  checks  and 
balances,  by  its  patriot  founders,  for  the  preservation  of  peace, 
liberty,  and  happiness.  And  according  to  the  provisions  of  that 
instrument,  the  term  of  a  Senator's  office  is  fixed  at  the  period  of 
six  years,  and  is  not  left  dependent  upon  the  fluctuations  of  party 
strife,  or  the  sudden  changes  of  factious  majorities.  It  may  be 
true,  that  the  "theory77  of  the  majority  "demands"  a  different 
term,  or  one  upon  different  principles;  but  it  is  sufficient  for  us, 
that  the  Constitution  does  not.  The  propriety  of  this  feature  in 
the  Government,  is  not  now  the  question  for  remark.  All  that  is 
asked,  is,  that  it  be  acknowledged  as  part  of  the  Constitution, 
and  that  as  such,  so  long  as  it  remains  unaltered,  it  be  maintained 
inviolate.  We  believe,  however,  that  there  is  wisdom  in  the  clause 
fixing  the  term  of  Senators  as  long  as  it  is,  and  that  it  was  not 
so  arranged  or  adopted  without  many  salutary  views.  If  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  had  thought,  as  the  majority  do,  that 
the  holding  of  his  seat,  on  the  part  of  any  Senator,  against  the 
wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  Legislature  of  his  State,  at  anj'  time, 
would  utterly  defeat  the  end  and  design  of  the  Government  they 
were  forming,  would  they  not  have  made  the  tenure  of  this  office 
dependent  upon  different  principles  ?  If  all  the  good,  and  the 
advantages  which  were  supposed  would  be  derived  from  the  for 
mation  of  this  Government  could  be  so  easily  defeated,  is  it  not 
strange  that  so  important  an  oversight  should  have  been  com 
mitted  by  men  so  distinguished  for  learning,  wisdom,  and  patriot 
ism?  Such  an  argument,  even  if  we  were  left  to  our  own  unas 
sisted  conjectures,  would  do  injustice  to  their  memories.  But 
when  with  the  light  of  their  own  exposition,  we  are  taught  that 
this  feature  was  incorporated  for  the  express  purpose  of  rendering 
that  branch  of  the  National  Legislature  free  from  the  influence 
and  control  of  sudden  changes  in  popular  opinion,  how  can  we  or 
any  one  subscribe  to  the  doctrine,  that  the  affectuation  by  a  Sen 
ator  of  this  very  original  design,  is  a  subversion  of  the  Govern 
ment,  and  a  defeat  of  the  end  of  its  creation !  And  with  these 
views  and  principles,  we  beg  leave,  respectful!}^  to  declare  our 
attachment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country  as  it  is,  in  prefer 
ence  to  any  undefined  principles,  or  untried  "theories  of  a  Repre 
sentative  Government,"  entertained  by  those  of  a  majority  of  the 
Committee.  This  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  major 
ity,  we  deem  no  less  indiscreet  in  another  consideration.  Twice, 
at  least,  within  the  last  four  years,  a  majority  of  the  Legislature 
of  this  State  differed  in  most  of  the  great  questions  of  national 
politics,  with  both  their  Senators  in  Congress.  Without  stating 
what  the  course  of  those  majorities  then  was,  as  a  precedent  now, 
it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  s&y,  that  the  Senators 
continued  to  retain  their  seats  j  or,  in  the  views  perhaps  of  the 


REPORT   ON   THE   STATE   OF  THE   REPUBLIC.  249 

majority,  "ceased  to  subserve  the  objects  of  their  appointment." 
The  same  may  be  said  of  several  other  States  of  the  Union;  and 
what  has  been  the  result?  Has  the  end  and  design  of  a  Repre 
sentative  Government  been  thereby  utterly  defeated  ?  And  can 
the  majority  seriously  entertain  the  opinion,  that  if  the  Honora 
ble  John  M.  Berrien,  who  deservedly  stands  among  the  first  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  for  learning  and  eloquence,  and 
who  is  no  less  an  honor  to  his  State,  than  an  ornament  to  the  na 
tion,  shall  continue  to  hold  his  place,  though  he  may  happen  to 
differ  at  this  time  with  the  majority  in  the  Legislature  of  his  own 
State,  on  many  questions  of  public  policy,  that  this  will  result  in 
an  utter  defeat  of  the  end  and  design  of  Representative  Govern 
ment?  We  can  hardly  conceive  that  we  have  to  do  more  than 
barely  state  the  proposition  to  cause  them,  however  strong  may 
be  their  party  zeal,  at  least  to  see  the  error  of  their  position,  if 
not  to  modify  the  extravagance  of  their  assertion. 

We  might  perhaps,  with  propriety,  here  dismiss  the  report,  and 
let  the  balance  go  for  what  it  is  worth  with  the  people.  But  as 
there  are  some  statements  of  fact,  in  relation  to  public  opinion 
in  this  State,  upon  certain  subjects,  to  which  our  silence  might 
be  construed  into  assent,  and  which  we  deem  equally  erroneous 
as  the  abstract  principles  expressed,  we  must  ask  the  indulgence 
still  further,  to  be  heard  upon  each  of  these  particulars.  Nor 
are  these  matters  of  small  import,  or  such  as  the  people  have 
little  interest  in.  They  involve  some  of  the  most  important  prin 
ciples  of  the  Government,  and  vitally  concern  every  interest  and 
condition  in  society.  None  are  so  high  as  to  escape  their  influ 
ence,  and  none  so'  low  as  not  to  become  the  victim  of  their  im 
proper  action.  It  is  true  that  upon  these  questions,  the  Commit 
tee  have  not  entered  into  argument.  They  satisfy  themselves  by 
giving  merely  a  short  declaration  of  facts.  This  perhaps  is  done 
for  the  purpose  rather  of  forestalling  public  opinion,  or  at  least 
to  give  tone  to  its  direction.  The  public,  nevertheless,  have 
great  interests  involved,  and  we  wish  to  examine  somewhat,  the 
authority  by  which  they  are  fortified. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  gravely  asserted  that  the  people  of 
Georgia  are  opposed  to  a  National  Bank.  By  the  people,  we  pre 
sume  are  meant  the  voters  of  the  State  ;  and  by  what  authority 
the  majority  was  induced  to  make  this  declaration,  we  are  also 
unable  to  conjecture.  The  sense  of  the  people  was  certainly 
never  taken  upon  the  question.  And  we  know  not  how  the  Com 
mittee  undertake  to  say  for  the  people,  what  they  have  never 
yet  s-aid  for  themselves.  Whether  a  majority  of  the  voters  of 
this  State,  is  for  or  against  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  we 
could  not  feel  authorized  to  make  a  positive  statement,  one  way 
or  the  other.  For  we  are  in  want  of  that  direct  and  convincing 
evidence  which  should  ever  govern  us,  in  making  a  declaration 
of  fact.  But  if  enquired  of  touching  our  opinion  of  the  state 
of  public  feeling  upon  the  subject,  we  should  be  compelled  to 


250  REPORT   ON   THE    STATE    OF    THE   REPUBLIC. 

give  it  in  direct  opposition  to  the  statement  made  in  the 
report.  We  mean  the  question  of  a  Bank,  compared  with  any 
other  system  of  National  Finance,  which  has  been  or  is  now 


proposed  to  the  country.  As  there  has  been  no  direct 
upon  the  subject,  we,  of  course,  in  the  formation  of  our  opinion, 
are  left  to  such  inferences  as  may  seem  clear  and  legitimate. 
This  is  the  only  alternative  for  ourselves  as  well  as  the  majority. 
And  by  this  standard,  we  are  willing  for  our  conclusions  to  be 
tested.  Those  who  claim  a  majority  against  a  Bank  generally, 
refer  to  the  elections  of  the  State,  and,  pointing  to  the  large  vote 
given  in  favor  of  General  Jackson,  in  1832,  immediately  after 
the  veto  of  the  bill  re-chartering  the  late  Bank,  seem  exultingly 
to  consider  the  argument  as  closed,  or  at  least  requiring  nothing 
more  than  such  confirmation,  as  subsequent  elections  have  given. 
We  object  not  to  the  data,  but  only  differ  in  our  inferences.  To 
show  the  error  of  the  inference  so  far  as  the  vote  given  to  General 
Jackson  was  concerned,  it  needs  only  to  be  stated  that  many  of 
the  warmest  advocates  of  a  Bank  in  this  State,  were  his  most 
zealous  supporters.  Things  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  sup 
position  that  the  question  of  Bank  or  no  Bank,  was  thereby  de 
cided.  And  again,  it  is  well  known  that  General  Jackson  did 
not  predicate  his  veto,  upon  the  want  of  Constitutional  power  in 
Congress,  to  incorporate  some  sort  of  an  institution  of  the  kind. 
But  in  his  veto  clearly  admitted  the  existence  of  such  power. 
The  friends  of  a  Bank,  therefore,  compromitted  no  principle  in 
aiding  him  in  his  election,  when  he  had  shown  himself  with  them 
upon  the  Constitutional  question  ;  and  they  had  a  fair  and  reasona 
ble  expectation  of  the  union  of  his  ability  and  influence  in  the 
establishment  of  a  new  institution,  upon  a  more  permanent  basis, 
and  with  fewer  objectionable  features.  Subsequent  to  this  time, 
little  was  said,  in  this  State,  upon  the  subject,  until  1837  —  after 
the  expiration  of  the  Charter  of  the  old  Bank,  and  that  general 
derangement  of  the  currency  throughout  the  country,  which  soon 
ensued  —  when  a  "  crash"  in  the  mercantile  world  was  felt  —  an 
extra  Session  of  Congress  was  convened  —  a  general  suspension 
of  specie  payments  on  the  part  of  the  hundreds  of  State  Banks, 
that  had  sprung  up  a  short  time  before,  was  pervading  the  land 
—  and  business  confidence  was  lost,  and  ruin  and  bankruptc}^ 
were  the  necessary  results  to  hundreds  of  good  citizens.  It  was 
at  this  time  when  the  whole  monetary  affairs  of  the  country  were 
thrown  into  the  utmost  confusion,  and  seemed  approaching  the 
wildest  disorder,  as  if  society  itself  had  lost  its  "  poise  or  proper 
balance,"  that  this  question  for  the  first  time  was  partially 
submitted  to  the  people  of  this  State,  in  comparison  with  its 
rival  the  Sub-Treasury  scheme.  And  it  is  true,  that  in  this  cor 
test,  many  who  had  before  been  opposed  to  a  Bank,  did  not  hesi 
tate  to  signify  their  preference  for  it  "  with  all  its  faults,"  to  the 
opposite  measure  .The  first  election  thereafter  for  members  of 
Congress,  before  whom  these  questions  would  come  for  action, 


REPORT   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   REPUBLIC.  251 

was  in  1838.  The  ticket  known  to  be  in  opposition  to  a  Bank, 
was  entirely  defeated,  while  that  which  was  generally  .supposed 
to  be  equally  opposed  to  the  Administration  measure  or  the  Sub- 
Treasury,  with  Mr.  Habersham,  an  avowed  advocate  of  the  Bank, 
was  elected  by  a  very  decided  majority.  It  is  true,  some  of 
those  who  were  then  elected  with  Mr.  Habersham,  did  not  fully 
agree  with  him,  and  one  had,  just  before  the  election,  declared 
himself  in  favor  of  the  Sub-Treasury.  But  this  was  only  known 
to  a  limited  extent ;  and  as  to  the  effect  which  the  declaration  of 
his  sentiments  had  where  it  was  known,  it  is  quite  sufficient  to 
add,  that  he  received  the  lowest  number  of  votes  of  those  who 
were  elected.  Certainly  the  question  of  Bank,  or  a  preference 
for  it,  over  the  then  proposed  system  of  the  Sub-Treasury,  entered 
more  full}'  into  the  merits  of  the  contest  in  that  election,  than  it 
ever  did  before  in  any  election  in  this  State.  And  the  result,  so 
far  as  it  was  an  index  of  popular  opinion,  does  not  justify  the 
statement,  that  at  that  time  the  people  of  the  State  were  opposed 
to  a  Bank,  compared  with  its  rival  system.  But  the  undersigned 
are  of  opinion,  that  if  there  has  been  any  election  of  late  years 
in  this  State,  which  should  with  propriety  be  entitled  to  the 
lead  in  deciding  popular  opinion  upon  this  question,  it  was  the 
contest  of  1840.  It  was  then  that  the  currency- — its  derangement 
and  irregularities,  agitated  the  whole  country.  This  was  the  theme 
of  general  conversation,  and  the  topic  of  almost  every  contro 
versy  in  politics.  It  is  true  that  many  other  questions  entered 
into  that  contest,  but  the  opponents  of  a  Bank  asserted  in  every 
quarter,  and  proclaimed  from  their  every  press,  that  this  was  one 
of  the  main  questions.  And  no  doubt  can  be  entertained,  but 
that  it  was  upon  this,  that  the  people  were  mostly  excited ;  for 
it  was  in  this  that  their  interests  were  most  deeply  involved.  It 
was  the  want  of  some  regulation  of  the  kind,  that  had  injured 
their  trade — destroyed  their  markets — paralyzed  their  energies 
— dried  up  their  resources,  and  had  brought  ruin  upon  them 
selves.  The  whole  people  were  aroused,  and  almost  every  man 
was  at  the  polls.  The  result  is  too  distinct  in  the  recollection  of 
all  to  need  repetition.  The  ticket  most  favorable  to  a  Bank 
was  returned  by  a  triumphant  majority.  While  those  who  had 
been  previously  elected,  when  on  a  similar  ticket  after  their  posi 
tion  was  known  to  the  people,  and  their  avowed  preference  for 
the  Sub-Treasury  had  been  generally  understood,  were  as  sig 
nally  defeated.  Judging  from  these  facts,  and  all  the  influences 
that  operated  in  that  election,  the  undersigned  hesitate  not  to 
say  that  in  their  opinion,  so  far  as  these  results  are  to  be  con 
sidered  as  indicia  of  public  opinion,  instead  of  their  being  in  op 
position,  the}'  are  decidedly  favorable  to  the  existence  of  such 
an  institution  in  preference  to  the  opposite  system.  With  regard 
to  those  late  or  subsequent  elections  which  are  appealed  to  as 
being  such  strong  confirmation  of  the  inference,  drawn  in  the 
first  instance,  the  undersigned  would  barely  make  this  remark — . 


252  KEPORT   ON    THE   STATE    OF   THE   KEPUBLIC. 

that  to  the  candid  and  considerate  of  all  parties,  it  need  only  be 
stated,  that  the  polls  at  those  elections  show  a  large  portion  of 
the  people  to  have  been  absent.  At  the  election  just  held  for 
members  of  Congress,  near  six  thousand  voters  of  the  State  were 
not  present,  or  at  least  did  not  vote.  This  election,  therefore, 
was  not  a  full  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  State  upon  any 
question.  The  absence  from  the  polls  of  persons  preferring  a 
Bank,  can  be  easily  accounted  for.  Men  do  not  generally  exert 
themselves  when  exertion  is  useless.  And  so  long  as  the  present 
Executive  of  the  United  States  continues  in  office,  the  friends  of 
a  Bank  have  no  hope  for  its  obtainment ;  and  hence  their  apathy 
throughout  this  State  at  the  late  elections.  The  undersigned, 
therefore,  abandoning  these  late  elections  as  being  no  proper 
criterion  of  public  sentiment  in  this  State,  upon  this  subject,  and 
they  not  knowing  a  single  instance  of  change  of  opinion  unfavora 
ble  to  a  Bank,  on  the  part  of  any  person  since  1840,  but  on  the 
contrary,  many  instances  of  t'hose  who  had  been  formerly  op 
posed,  yielding  that  opposition,  and  surrendering  their  own 
judgments  to  the  wisdom  of  the  founders  of  the  Government,  and 
to  the  experience  of  the  most  prosperous  days  of  its  history,  de 
claring  their  decided  preference  to  a  system  which  has  been  so 
long  and  successfully  tried,  to  any  of  the  new  and  wild  experi 
ments  which  have  been  submitted  to  the  country — they  are  bound 
to  give  it  as  their  opinion,  that  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of 
this  State  regard  such  an  institution  as  useful,  necessary,  and 
proper ;  and  that  when  the  opportunity  comes  for  their  action  to 
be  felt,  and  when  the  expression  of  their  opinion  in  the  National 
Councils,  by  their  representatives,  will  not  be  thwarted  or 
checked  by  the  caprice,  or  ambition  of  any  single  individual, 
they  will  not  fail  to  make  it  in  as  decisive  tones  as  those  which 
determined  the  ever  memorable  contest  alluded  to  before. 

But,  in  the  second  place.  Another  broad  declaration  made  by 
the  majority,  and  to  which  the  undersigned  cannot  give  their 
assent,  is,  that  "the  people  of  Georgia  are  opposed  to  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  Public  Lands"  Now,  how 
this  conclusion  is  arrived  at,  we  must  confess  that  we  are  equally 
unable  to  determine.  In  this  case,  adopting  the  same  standard 
as  that  assumed  in  the  previous  one,  we  certainly  arrive  at  very 
different  conclusions  from  those  attained  by  the  majority.  If,  by 
the  phrase,  "the  distribution  of  the  sales  of  the  Public  Lands,"  it 
is  meant  to  include  the  distribution  which  was  lately  expected  to 
take  place,  certainly  the  committee  will  not  even  attempt  to 
maintain  their  position ;  for  if  we  be  not  misinformed,  a  place 
was  left  for  the  use  of  these  funds  in  legislative  appropriation 
even  before  their  reception ;  and  the  present  Governor  of  this 
State  was  amongst  the  earliest,  if  not  the  first,  in  the  whole  Union, 
to  make  application  for  the  portion  coming  to  Georgia.  This,  in 
our  opinion,  would  not  justify  us  in  saying  that  the  people  were 
opposed  to  the  distribution.  But  perhaps  the  majority  mean  only 


BEPOKT  ON  THE   STATE   OF   THE   KEPUBLIC.  253 

to  say  that  the  people  are  only  opposed  to  the  principle  of  "the 
distribution,"  though  they  are  willing  and  ready  to  receive  their 
part  when  it  is  made.  That 

"  The  right  they  see,  and  approve  it  too, 
The  wrong  condemn,  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue" 

But  this  would  be  giving  the  State  such  a  position  before  the 
civilized  and  moral  world,  as  we  would  be  slow  to  acknowledge. 
And  as  we  are  unwilling  to  see  this  injustice  done  to  her  charac 
ter  by  any  such  unauthorized  statement,  we  feel  bound  to  vindi 
cate  l^er  honor  from  the  unwarrantable  aspersion.  We  believe 
that  the  State  has  applied  for  her  quota  because  it  was  right  and 
it  was  just,  and  that,  for  the  same  reasons,  she  could  continue  to 
demand  it.  But  the  question  now  is  not  the  propriety  of  the 
distribution,  it  is  whether  the  people  of  Georgia  be  opposed  to 
it  ?  and  in  determining  it  as  before,  we  only  have  recourse  to  the 
indications  of  the  past.  So  far  as  the  application  for  her  portion 
of  the  dividend  expected  to  be  made  is  concerned,  that  is  cer 
tainly  a  strong  demonstration  in  favor  of  the  distribution.  But 
this  is  not  all.  In  1837,  when  the  large  distribution  was  made 
of  the  surplus  revenue  of  the  United  States,  which  accrued  mostly 
from  the  sales  of  the  Public  Lands,  Georgia  showed  no  formidable 
opposition  to  the  measure,  but  readily  received  her  part,  and 
thereby  added  over  one  million  of  dollars  to  the  means  of  the 
Central  Bank,  to  aid  the  people  in  her  munificent  loans.  From 
these  examples,  how  can  it  be  said  that  her  people  are  opposed 
to  the  distribution.  But,  again.  In  1833,  when  the  question  as 
to  the  proper  disposition  of  the  Public  Lands  was  before  Con 
gress,  Georgia  gave  some  expressions  of  the  views  of  her  people 
upon  this  subject,  at  least  so  far  as  a  legislative  resolve  could, 
with  propriety,  be  considered  as  such  expression.  The  language 
of  the  Legislature  at  that  time  was  in  the  following  words : 
"Without  specifically  inquiring  into  the  means  by  which  the 
United  States  Government  became  possessed  of  the  public  lands, 
or  the  causes  which,  after  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  induced 
several  of  the  States  to  transfer  to  that  Government  all,  or  a 
great  portion,  of  their  unoccupied  lands,  under  certain  limitations 
and  restrictions,  specified  in  the  several  deeds  of  cession  or  re- 
linquishments,  your  committee  deem  it  sufficient  to  state  that 
those  deeds  and  relinquishments,  and  all  other  purchases  of  lands 
by  the  United  States  Government,  were  made  for  the  common 
benefit  of  the  several  States.  That  it  is  a  common  fund,  to  be 
distributed  without  partiality,  and  to  inure  to  the  benefit  of  all 
the  States."  Here  is  a  most  positive  declaration  of  sentiment 
nine  years  ago,  before  any  distribution  had  been  made,  that  these 
lands  were  a  common  fund,  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  General 
Government,  to  be  wasted  and  squandered  in  useless  extrava 
gance,  but  for  the  several  States — that  is,  each  individually  ;  and 
that  this  fund  ought  to  be  distributed  among  them  without  par- 


254  REPORT   ON   THE  STATE    OF   THE    REPUBLIC. 

tiality.  How,  then,  in  the  face  of  this  declaration,  and  after  the 
distribution  which  has  been  made,  and  Georgia's  reception  or 
application  for  her  portion,  can  we  join  in  the  assertion  that  her 
people  are  opposed  to  the  distribution  ?  But,  as  stated  before, 
we  apprehend  the  object  is  rather  to  form  and  forestall  public 
opinion,  than  to  express  what  it  really  is.  For  why  should 
Georgia  be  opposed  to  this  distribution  ?  Has  she  no  interest 
in  those  lands,  and  no  right  to  a  part  of  their  proceeds  ?  We 
conceive  that  she  has  ;  and  that  she  should  neither  neglect  her 
interest,  nor  relinquish  her  rigtyt.  The  territory  of  Georgia  once 
extended  to  the  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  including  within  its 
limits  the  present  new  and  flourishing  States  of  Alabama  and 
Mississippi.  This  immense  region,  embracing  some  of  the  most 
fertile  soil  on  the  continent,  was  once  the  property  of  our  fathers. 
Had  it  been  kept  and  retained  by  them,  it  would  have  been  worth 
millions  of  treasure ;  but  for  purposes  more  patriotic  than  pru 
dent,  they  ceded  this  entire  domain,  forming  the  two  States  above 
named,  to  the  General  Government,  under  specific  limitations  and 
conditions.  These  were,  that  the  lands,  after  the  payment  of  a 
certain  sum  of  money,  and  making  good  certain  titles,  should  be 
held  by  the  General  Government  as  a  common  fund,  for  the  bene 
fit  of  the  United  States,  Georgia  included,  and  for  no  other  pur 
pose  whatever.  The  language  of  the  condition  is  as  follows : 
"  That  all  the  lands  ceded  by  this  agreement  to  the  United  States, 
shall,  after  satisfying  the  above  mentioned  payment  of  $1,250,000 
to  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  the  grants  recognized  by  the  pre 
ceding  conditions,  be  considered  as  a  common  fund  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  Georgia  included,  and  shall  be 
faithfully  disposed  of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other  use  or 
purpose  ivhatever." 

Similar  deeds  of  cession  were  made  by  the  other  States,  which 
were  the  proprietors  of  those  territories  which  now  also  embrace 
parts  of  the  public  lands.  The  terms  of  the  Virginia  cession  are 
very  much  like  those  of  Georgia.  They  expressly  stipulated  that 
these  lands  "  should  be  faithfully  and  bona  fide  disposed  of  for 
the  purposes  specified  in  the  cession,  and  for  no  other  use  or 
purpose  whatsoever.'1  Now,  these  first  objects  of  the  deeds  of 
cession  having  been  fully  accomplished,  what  do  the  advocates 
of  distribution  ask,  but  that  the  remainder  of  these  lands  shall 
be  faithfully  and  bona  fide  disposed  of,  according  to  the  terms 
by  which  the  Government  acquired  them  ?  Is  it  not  right  that 
Georgia,  and  other  States,  should  insist  upon  the  fulfilment  of 
the  contract,  so  far  as  their  interests  are  concerned  ?  And  if  it 
is  right,  why  should  it  not  be  demanded  ?  Is  it  sufficient  to  be 
met  with  the  answer,  that  it  is  better  for  the  General  Government 
to  keep  these  funds  to  meet  its  own  ordinary  expenses,  rather 
than  turn  them  over  to  the  States  to  whom  they  rightly  belong, 
for  fear,  in  case  of  their  withdrawal,  that  heavier  contributions 
will  be  laid  by  way  of  taxation  ?  We  think  not.  It  would  be  an 


EEPORT  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC.      255 

insufficient  answer  in  any  trustee,  when  called  upon  to  account 
for  funds  committed  to  his  charge,  that  he  had  used  them  in  the 
payment  of  his  own  debts.  Nor  does  it  follow,  that  if  these 
funds  be  distributed  according  to  contract,  that  more  taxes  will 
be  levied.  The  people  will  rather  require  the  expenses  and 
extravagances  of  the  Government  to  be  curtailed,  which  would 
be  one  of  the  most  salutary  ways  of  effecting  that  reformation. 
But  this  reply  is  only  intended  for  deception  and  delusion.  It  is 
well  known  that  millions  of  these  lands  have  already  been  squan 
dered  in  gifts,  largesses,  and  donations,  and  are  not  brought  in 
the  common  treasury  of  the  country.  For  years  past  they  have 
been  kept  as  a  kind  of  reserved  fund  of  speculation  for  the  po 
litical  gamblers  for  the  Presidency.  Millions  of  acres  have  been 
given  as  bounties  to  schools  and  colleges,  and  other  purposes  in 
the  new  States ;  and  every  means  has  been  resorted  to,  by  the 
friends  of  different  favorites,  to  secure  the  popularity  of  the  man 
of  their  choice,  by  some  new  method  of  wasting  the  public  do 
main.  And  the  contest  now  is  really  not  between  the  claims  of 
the  treasury  and  the  friends  of  distribution,  but  between  those 
who  advocate  a  partial  or  entire  surrender  of  the  lands  to  the 
new  States,  and  those  who  insist  upon  a  division  of  their  pro 
ceeds,  according  to  the  terms  of  cession.  And  are  the  people  of 
Georgia  willing  to  see  these  lands,  and  the  immense  interest  she 
has  in  them,  either  so  squandered,  or  entirely  abandoned,  accord 
ing  to  the  views  of  different  political  aspirants  ?  Has  she  no 
use  for  money,  that  she  should  be  so  lavish  and  prodigal  of  her 
treasure  ?  If  the  General  Government  is  in  debt,  it  has  been  incurred 
by  its  own  profligacy ;  and  should  Georgia  and  the  other  States 
surrender  their  rights  in  order  to  sustain  its  credit,  when  their  own 
is  permitted  to  go  dishonored  ?  Let  the  United  States  account 
to  us  for  what  is  our  due,  and  we  will  not  fail  to  render  to  them 
every  dollar  that  is  legally  and  properly  exacted ;  or,  in  other 
words,  let  us  but  have  our  own,  and  we  will  be  the  better  able  to 
pay  what  is  theirs.  Georgia  is  certainly  entitled  to  her  propor 
tionate  share  of  the  public  lands,  and  it  does  not  follow  that, 
under  any  tariff  regulation,  even  to  make  up  the  deficiency,  that 
her  citizens-  would  consume,  of  foreign  importations,  the  same 
rateable  proportion.  And  when  our  State  is  in  debt,  and  our 
pecfple  have  to  be  taxed  to  sustain  its  credit,  is  it  not  better 
policy  to  be  looking  after  her  welfare,  than  to  be  consulting  for 
the  interest  of  the  General  Government  ?  We  need  not  appre 
hend  but  that  it  will  always  be  sufficiently  alive  to  its  own  in 
terest  ;  let  us  be  but  half  as  watchful  of  ours,  and  we  shall  have 
nothing  to  fear.  Under  the  recommendation  of  his  Excellency, 
the  Governor,  for  heavier  taxes,  we  believe  the  people  of  Georgia 
will  greatly  prefer  the  collection  and  reception  of  that  which  is 
due  them,  than  to  be  made  further  subject  to  such  burthens. 
Georgia,  upon  occasions  that  are  past,  has  not  been  wont  to  sur 
render  her  rights ;  am1  when  she  speaks  upon  this  subject,  we 


256      REPORT  OX  THE  STATE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

believe  she  will  do  as  heretofore,  show  an  entire  willingness  to 
yield  to  the  General  Government,  and  all  others,  what  are  their 
legitimate  dues,  while  she  still  will  insist  in  demanding,  to  the 
last  cent,  that  which  is  her  own. 

In  the  third  place :  Another  principle  to  which  the  people  of 
this  State  in  the  report  are  said  to  be  opposed,  is  "  the  abolition 
of  the  Veto  Power."  Had  nothing  else  been  said  upon  this  sub 
ject,  or  no  attempt  been  made,  as  we  conceive,  to  misrepresent 
the  views  of  our  honorable  Senator,  in  relation  to  it,  we  should 
have  given  the  proposition  our  hearty  assent.  No  man  in  the 
State,  perhaps,  is  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  veto  power. 
Judge  Berrien  certainly  is  not,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  his 
sentiments  declared.  No  one  can  express  his  views  upon  the 
subject  more  clearly  than  he  did  himself,  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  We  beg  leave  to  refer  to  his  words,  that  none 
may  misunderstand  either  him,  or  that  modification  of  the  veto 
power,  of  which  he  is  in  favor?  "I  ask,"  said  he,  "the  Senate 
now  to  consider  what  it  is  the  resolution  proposes  as  a  security 
against  the  recurrence  of  this  state  of  things  ?  Does  it  seek  to 
abolish  the  Executive  Veto  ?  No,  sir ;  this  is  not  the  proposition. 
It  is  simply  to  modify  the  existing  limitation.  Let  us  now  look 
to  the  limitation  which  the  resolution  recommends.  It  proposes 
that  when  a  bill,  which  has  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress, 
shall  be  returned  by  the  President,  with  his  veto,  all  further  ac 
tion  shall  be  suspended  upon  it,  until  the  next  succeeding  session  ; 
in  the  mean  time,  the  reasons  of  the  President  will  be  spread 
upon  the  Legislative  Journal — will  be  read,  considered,  submit 
ted  to  the  public,  and  discussed  oralty,  and  through  the  medium 
of  the  press ;  and  members  will  return  to  their  constituents,  will 
mingle  with  and  consult  them.  At  the  opening  of  the  next  ses 
sion  of  Congress,  the  resolution  proposes  that  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  shall  be  resumed ;  and  then  if  the  majority  of  the 
whole  number  of  Senators  and  Representatives  elected  ;  after  the 
interval  thus  afforded  for  deliberation,  for  consultation  with  their 
constituents  and  for  the  public  discussion  of  the  subject,  shall 
reaffirm  the  bill,  it  shall  become  a  law." 

Such  are  the  sentiments  of  the  Senator,  and  from  which  will 
appear  how  great  injustice  is  done  him  in  imputing  to  him  a  wjsh 
to  abolish  the  veto.  But  the  majority  say,  if  the  proposed  modi 
fication  should  be  adopted,  "  all  our  rights,  and  the  Constitution 
itself,  will  be  the  sport  of  an  irresponsible  majority  in  Congress. 
This  is  bold  language,  and  upon  a  grave  subject,  and  therefore 
deserves  particular  attention.  In  noticing  it  we  will  suggest  but 
three  enquiries.  In  the  first  place :  will  not  the  rights  of  the 
people  be  as  amply  protected  in  the  hands  of  a  number  of  Repre 
sentatives  as  by  the  will  of  one  man  ?  Would  they  be  less  secure 
with  their  Representatives  in  Congress  than  with  the  President  ? 
In  the  second  place:  if  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended, 
would  Congress  have  any  more  power  over  it  then,  than  they  have 


REPORT   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   REPUBLIC.  257 

now  ?  Congress  now  lias  no  power  over  the  Constitution.  They 
are  bound  by  its  precepts.  And  as  the  proposed  amendment 
confers  no  new  power,  Congress,  of  course,  would  have  no  more 
power  over  it  after  the  amendment  than  before.  In  the  third 
place :  How  can  the  majorities  in  Congress  be  said  to  be  irre 
sponsible  ?  Are  they  not  elected  by  the  people.  Do  not  the  mem 
bers  of  the  House  hold  their  office  for  the  short  term  of  two 
years  ?  Are  they  then  not  amenable  to  the  people  ?  If  they  do 
wrong,  or  misrepresent  the  wishes  of  those  who  elect  them,  will 
they  not  be  displaced,  and  others  put  in  their  stead  ?  Are  they 
more  irresponsible  than  the  President  ? 

But,  in  the  fourth  place  :  Another  subject  is  mentioned  in  the 
report,  on  which  the  undersigned  were  desirous  that  no  disagree 
ment  would  have  existed  either  in  the  Committee,  or  the  House. 
We  allude  to  the  principles  involved  in  the  adjustment  of  the 
Tariff.  Nor  would  we  notice  the  subject  at  this  time,  if  we  did 
not  conceive  that  there  has  been  an  evident  attempt  in  this  par 
ticular,  also,  to  do  great  injustice  to  the  position  of  our 
honorable  Senator,  in  relation  to  it.  The  majority,  in  their  first 
resolution,  declare  that  "  the  opinions  of  the  Honorable  John  M. 
Berrien,  upon  the  adjustment  of  the  Tariff,  are  in  direct  opposi 
tion  to  the  principles  of  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  this 
State."  And  in  their  preamble,  state  that  "  a  majority  of  the 
people  believe  that  a  Tariff  for  protection  is  unequal  in  its  opera 
tions,  oppressive,  and  unjust."  From  this  the  inference  is  clear, 
that  principles  are  imputed  to  the  honorable  Senator,  favorable 
to  the  enactment  of  a  "  Tariff  for  protection."  This  imputation 
we  deem  utterly  unfounded  and  altogether  unjust.  Judge 
Berrien  has  always  been  opposed  to  a  "Tariff  for  protection;" 
or  at  least  we  supposed  that  this  position  would  be  granted  him 
wherever  the  author  of  the  "Georgia  Manifesto"  was  known. 
Nor  do  the  undersigned  know  with  what  recklessness  of  purpose, 
a  contrary  position  is  now  charged  upon  him.  Perhaps  the  same 
spirit,  if  unchecked,  would  lead  its  authors  to  make  the  same 
unwarrantable  allegations  against  the  whole  political  party,  in 
this  State,  with  which  he  acts.  If  so,  our  object  is  to  repel  even 
the  insinuation.  The  opinions  and  principles  of  that  party,  upon 
the  Tariff  question,  have  always  been  known.  They  have  under 
gone  no  change  or  mutation.  And  in  making  a  declaration  of 
them,  we  presume  we  would  be  but  stating,  in  the  main,  those 
held  and  entertained  by  our  Senator.  We  are,  and  have  been, 
in  favor  of  a  Tariff  for  revenue,  and  revenue  only  ;  and  that  for 
no  more  revenue  than  is  sufficient  to  support  the  Government  in 
an  economical  administration  thereof.  We  hold  that  in  levying 
such  a  tariff,  in  many  instances,  it  may  be  both  proper  and  right 
to  discriminate.  This  maybe  done  either  for  the  purpose  of 
retaliating  against  the  policy  of  foreign  nations,  who  may 
subject  our  produce  to  heavy  taxation,  or  for  the  purpose 
of  exempting  some  articles  of  foreign  production  consumed 
17 


258      KEPORT  OX  THE  STATE  OF  THE  KEPUBLIC. 

extensively  in  this  country,  (and  in  some  instances,  by  classes 
less  able  to  bear  the  burthens  of  the  Government,)  from  so  high 
duties,  as  others  more  able  to  sustain  them.  And  as  far  as  such 
a  tariff  incidentally  encourages,  fosters,  or  protects,  the  domes 
tic  industry  of  the  country,  in  any  branch  thereof,  whether 
mechanical,  manufacturing,  shipping,  or  agricultural,  it  may 
properly  do  so.  A  Tariff  "for  protection"  to  which  we  are  and 
have  been  opposed,  is,  where  the  Tariff  is  levied  not  with  a  view  to 
revenue,  but  for  the  prohibition,  totally,  or  in  part,  of  the  impor 
tation  of  certain  articles  from  abroad,  that  the  producers  of  such 
articles  in  this  country,  may  have  our  market  to  themselves,  free 
from  foreign  competition  ;  or  that  the  price  of  the  foreign  articles 
may  be  so  enhanced  by  the  excessive  duties,  as  to  enable  the 
home  producer  to  enter  the  market  without  fear  of  competition. 
Against  this,  we  protest,  because  the  means  used  are  not  legiti 
mate  ;  and  it  is  highly  oppressive  to  the  interests  of  all  other 
classes  in  society,  who  are  the  consumers  of  such  articles.  As 
far  as  the  Government,  in  the  proper  exercise  of  its  powers,  can 
give  encouragement  to  the  general  industry  of  the  country,  or 
aid  in  the  development  of  its  resources,  it  should  do  it.  But  not 
one  step  be3^ond  that  should  it  go. 

With  these  views  we  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  resolu 
tions  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Hon.  John  M.  Berrien,  our  Senator  in  Congress,  for 
the  able  and  distinguished  manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  his  public 
duties,  receives  our  warmest  approbation,  and  is  entitled  to  the  thanks 
and  confidence  of  the  people  of  Georgia. 

Resolved,  That  we  do  not  consider  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
the  proper  constituents  of  Senators  in  Congress ;  or  that  the  Senators  in 
Congress  are  any  more  responsible  or  amenable  to  them  than  to  any 
other  equal  number  of  like  citizens  of  the  State. 

Resolved,  That  in  our  opinion,  a  majority  of  the  people  of  this  State 
are  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  utility  and  expediency  of  a  National  Bank, 
compared  with  any  other  system  of  Finance  proposed  to  the  country ;  as 
well  as  a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
among  the  States,  severally,  "  equitably,"  and  "  without  partiality" 

Resolved,  That,  in  our  opinion,  the  most  proper  and  expedient  way  of 
raising  means  to  meet  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  General  Government, 
is  by  duties  upon  imports  ;  and  though  in  the  levying  of  such  duties,  for 
this  main  object,  a  judicious  and  proper  discrimination  be  exercised,  yet 
in  no  instance  should  duties  be  laid  for  the  purpose  of  protection,  but,  for 
revenue  only. 

EOBT.  A.  T.  KIDLEY,  JOHN  TOWNSEND, 

A.  B.  REID,  JAMES  T.  BOTHWELL, 

WM.  B.  TANKERSLEY,  EZ.  BUFFINGTON 
JOHN  CAMPBELL. 


BIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIK   SEATS.  259 


SPEECH  ON   THE    RIGHT  OF    MEMBERS    TO    THEIR 
SEATS  IN  THE   HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 
DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE,  FEBRUARY  9th,  1844. 

On  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  of  Elections, 
which  concluded  with  the  following  resolutions  for  the  adoption 
of  the  House : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  second  section  of  an  act  for  the  apportionment  of 
representatives  among  the  several  States,  according  to  the  sixth  census, 
approved  June  25th,  1842,  is  not  a  law  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  and  valid,  operative,  and  binding  upon  the 
States. 

"  Resolved,  That  all  the  members  of  this  House  (excepting  the  con 
tested  cases  from  Virginia,  upon  which  no  opinion  is  hereby  expressed) 
have  been  duly  elected  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and 
are  entitled  to  their  seats  in  this  House."  • 

Mr.  Stephens  (succeeding  Mr.  Thompson,  of  Mississippi,  in 
the  debate)  said : 

MR.  SPEAKER  : — The  gentleman  from  Mississippi  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat,  in  order  to  sustain  the  position  assumed  in  the 
first  resolution  upon  your  table,  and  which  is  now  under  consid 
eration,  (to  wit :  that  the  second  section  of  the  last  apportion 
ment  act  is  "  not  a  law  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,")  insists  that  the  "power  of  districting"  was 
never  intended  to  be  conferred  by  the  4th  section  of  the  1st  article 
of  the  constitution,  either  upon  the  general  government  or  the 
State  governments  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  power  or  right 
of  providing  for  the  election  of  members  to  this  House  by  dis 
tricts  was  not,  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution, 
intended  or  understood  to  be  embraced  in  the  terms,  "  times, 
places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections." 

In  this,  sir,  I  wholly  disagree  with  him ;  and,  as  the  same 
view  has  been  presented  by  others,  and  urged  with  some  force, 
notwithstanding  it  has  not  been  taken  by  the  majority  of  the 
committee,  I  think  it  proper  not  to  let  it  pass  without  notice  ; 
and  more  especially  as,  in  the  opinions  of  some,  the  whole  merit 
of  the  subject  matter  now  before  the  House,  turns  upon  this  ques 
tion.  For  they  admit,  if  this  power  was  intended  to  be  embraced 
in  the  language  used  in  this  clause  of  the  constitution,  Congress 
has  the  same  right  to  its  exercise  that  the  States  have.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  admission  is  no  less  frank  than  it  is  legiti 
mate  ;  for  I  cannot  well  perceive  how  any  more  power  under  the 
clause  can  be  claimed  for  the  States,  than  must  be  acknowledged, 
also,  to  belong  to  Congress. 

The  language  of  the  clause  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  of  sena 
tors  and  representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the 
legislatures  thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time,  by  law, 


260  EIGHT   OF    MEMBERS   TO    THEIR   SEATS. 

make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  place  of  choosing 
senators." 

And,  of  course,  so  far  as  the  language  is  concerned,  whatever 
power  over  this  subject  is  given  primarily  to  the  States,  by  this 
clause,  is  also  given  ultimately  to  this  government.  The  only 
question,  then,  upon  this  point,  is  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  or  the  extent  of  their  comprehension.  If  we  refer  to  the 
practice  of  the  States  as  a  rule  to  govern  us  in  coming  to  a  con 
clusion  upon  this  point,  all  will  admit  that  it  is  decidedly  against 
the  position  assumed.  Even  from  the  beginning  of  the  govern 
ment,  most  of  the  States  have  exercised  the  power  ;  and  in  "  pre 
scribing  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  their  elections," 
have  divided  their  territories  into  districts,  and  directed  their 
elections  to  be  held  accordingly ;  the  legality  of  which,  upon  this 
floor,  has  never  been  disputed.  But  to  avoid  the  force  of  these 
examples,  those  who  assume  the  position  with  the  gentleman 
from  Mississippi,  say  that  the  power  of  districting,  which  the 
States  have  exercised,  is  not  derived  from  the  constitution,  but 
is  one  of  the  inherent  rights  of  sovereigmty  in  the  States,  which 
they  possess  independently  of  the  constitution.  Now,  sir,  this 
seems  to  me  to  be  retreating  from  one  difficulty  only  to  encounter 
another,  and  a  greater  one.  For  I  hold  that  the  States  have  no 
right  to  representation  here,  either  inherent  or  of  any  other 
character,  except  such  as  is  derived  through  the  constitution,  and 
in  such  way,  mode,  and  manner,  as  was  agreed  upon  in  the  con 
stitution.  How  is  it  that  representation  is  apportioned  among  the 
States  upon  the  federal  basis,  but  because  it  was  so  agreed  upon, 
and  entered  as  one  of  the  terms  of  the  same  compact  which  de 
clared  that  the  "  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections" 
should  be  prescribed  by  the  legislatures,  subject  to  the  control  of 
Congress  ?  Indeed,  this  view  is  conceded  by  the  majority  in  their 
report;  for  they  say:  "Whatever  power  the  States  have  over 
elections  they  derive  from  the  constitution" — which  is  certainly 
true ;  for  without  the  constitution  there  would  have  been  no  Con 
gress,  and  no  representation. 

But,  to  settle  the  matter  whether  the  power  in  question  was 
intended  to  be  embraced  in  the  words  used,  I  think  we  have  only 
to  refer  to  the  history  of  the  times,  and  see  what  those  who  made 
the  constitution  understood  at  the  time  to  be  the  meaning  and 
extent  of  the  terms  employed.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  House 
to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Madison  upon  this  subject,  made  in  the 
convention,  when  this  clause  was  under  consideration  in  that 
body.  And  these  I  read,  sir,  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
what  was  then  fully  understood  to  be  the  extent  of  the  powrer 
conferred  by  the  words.  These  remarks  were  made  (it  may  be 
proper  for  me  also  to  add)  when  the  second  part  of  the  clause 
was  under  consideration ;  that  is,  the  propriety  of  giving  the 
ultimate  control  over  the  subject  to  Congress.  "  This  view  of 
the  question,"  said  he,  after  some  previous  remarks,  (see  the 


EIGHT    OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS.  261 

Madison  papers,  vol.  3,  page  1280,)  "seems  to  decide  that  the 
legislatures  of  the  States  ought  not  to  have  the  uncontrolled 
right  of  regulating  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding 
elections.  TJiese  were  words  of  great  latitude.  It  was  impossi 
ble  to  foresee  all  the  abuse  that  might  be  made  of  the  discre 
tionary  power.  Whether  the  elections  should  be  by  ballot  or 
viva  voce  ;  whether  the  electors  should  assemble  at  this  place  or 
at  that  place ;  should  be  divided  into  districts,  or  all  meet  at  one 
place ;  should  all  vote  for  all  the  representatives,  or  all  in  a  dis 
trict  vote  for  a  member  allotted  to  that  district ; — these  and 
many  other  points  would  depend  upon  the  legislatures,  or  might 
materially  affect  the  appointments."  That  is,  if  the  controlling 
power  were  not  given  to  Congress.  For,  said  he  further:  "It 
seems  to  be  as  improper  in  principle,  though  it  might  not  be  as 
inconvenient  in  practice,  to  give  the  State  legislature  this  great 
authority  over  the  elections  of  the  people  in  the  general  legisla 
ture,  as  it  would  be  to  give  to  the  latter  a  like  power  over  the 
elections  of  the  representatives  in  the  State  legislatures." 

That  the  same  meaning  was  generally  understood  at  the  time, 
is  abundantly  established  from  other  sources.  But  I  will  not 
detain  the  House  by  referring  further  thereto ;  and  I  only  refer 
to  these  opinions  now,  for  the  purpose,  as  I  have  said,  of  showing 
what  was  understood  to  be  the  import  of  the  words,  "times, 
places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections ;"  and  that  no  person 
appeared  at  that  time  to  entertain  any  opinion  contrary  to  Mr. 
Madison,  to  wit — that  "they  were  words  of  great  latitude  ;"  and 
that  by  them,  or  under  their  authority,  the  States  would  have 
power  to  decide  "  whether  all  the  people  in  one  State  should  vote 
for  all  their  representatives,  or  whether  all  in  a  district  should 
vote  for  a  member  allotted  to  such  district."  It  is  true,  I  might 
use  the  authority  of  Mr.  Madison  here  quoted,  to  show  that  he 
was  in  favor  of  the  incorporation  of  the  latter  part  of  the  clause, 
which  gives  the  controlling  power  to  Congress,  and  that  he  went 
in  argument  so  far  as  to  say,  in  effect,  that  it  would  be  as  wrong 
in  principle  to  leave  this  subject  entirely  under  the  control  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  States,  as  it  would  be  to  give  to  tfie  general  gov 
ernment  power  to  control  the  elections  of  the  members  of  the 
State  legislatures.  But  this  is  not  my  object  at  present,  which  is 
only  to  show  that  the  power  of  "  districting"  is  not  only  embraced 
in  the  words  used  ex  m  termini,  but  was  well  understood  to  be 
so  intended  by  those  who  made  the  constitution  ;  and  that  it  is 
in  pursuance  of  the  same  that  the  States  have  ever  since  exer 
cised  the  power.  And  if  this  point  is  satisfactorily  established, 
as  I  believe  it  is,  I  leave  it  for  gentlemen  to  decide  whether,  ac 
cording  to  their  admission,  Congress  has  not  the  same  right  to 
its  exercise  that  the  States  have. 

There  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  another  particular  also,  in  which  I  do 
not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Mississippi.  He  says  that  if 
he  believed  the  second  section  of  the  apportionment  act  to  be. 


262  RIGHT    OF    MEMBERS   TO    THEIR   SEATS. 

constitutional,  he  would  not  consent,  coming  as  he  does  from  a 
State  electing  by  general  ticket,  to  hold  his  seat  in  this  House. 
Now,  sir,  I  come  from  a  State  electing  in  the  same  way ;  and  I 
believe  the  section  of  the  act  alluded  to,  and  now  under  con 
sideration,  to  be  a  constitutional  law ;  and  that  it  ought  to  be 
considered  as  operative  and  valid,  touching  the  elections  of  mem 
bers,  in  the  organization  of  this  House.  Entertaining  these 
opinions,  I  have  been  asked  how  I  could  consistently  retain  my 
seat  as  a  member  of  this  body,  sworn  as  I  am,  to  support  the 
constitution.  My  answer  is,  that  I  submit  the  question  to  this 
House,  the  constitutional  tribunal,  for  its  decision.  This,  sir,  is 
a  constitutional  question  which  individually  concerns  me  but 
little ;  but  one  in  which  the  people  of  the  State  I  have  the  honor 
in  part  to  represent,  as  well  as  the  people  of  all  the  States,  have' 
a  deep  interest ;  and  one  in  the  settlement  of  which  the  same 
people  have  a  right  to  be  heard.  The  people  of  Georgia,  sir, 
have  a  right  to  representation  here,  either  by  the  general-ticket 
or  district  system.  A  majority  of  that  people,  I  believe,  agree 
with  me  that  the  district  system,  under  existing  laws,  is  the  legal 
and  proper  one.  And  here  I  would  respectfully  dissent  from  the 
opinion  of  one  of  my  colleagues,  [Mr.  BLACK,]  expressed  on  a 
former  occasion — that  the  people  of  that  State  were  united  upon 
this  subject,  and  that  the  prevailing  opinion  of  both  parties  was 
in  favor  of  the  general  ticket.  I  think  if  there  is  any  one  par 
ticular  in  which  both  parties  of  that  State  are  more  nearly  agreed 
than  upon  any  other,  it  is  the  district  systen.  At  the  session 
before  the  last  of  our  legislature,  the  democratic  party  were 
largely  in  the  majority,  and  an  act  was  past  districting  the  State, 
which  was  vetoed  by  the  governor  ;  and  the  late  legislature,  which 
was  whig,  passed  another  act  of  similar  import,  which  has  re 
ceived  the  executive  sanction,  and  which  is  now  the  law  of  the 
State.  But  I  barely  allude  to  this,  to  put  the  matter  right  before 
the  House. 

The  question  involved  in  the  subject  now  under  consideration, 
is  one  upon  which  great  difference  of  opinion  seems  to  prevail ; 
and  it  is  one  neither  for  me  or  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
Georgia,  but  for  this  House  to  determine.  This  House,  by  the 
constitution,  is  made  the  sole  "judge  of  the  elections,  returns, 
and  qualifications  of  its  members,"  and  if  you  say  that  the  mem 
bers  elected  by  general  ticket  are  legally  and  properly  returned, 
your  decision,  by  the  constitution,  is  final  and  conclusive  upon 
the  subject ;  and,  in  that  event,  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
Georgia  say  I  am  to  be  one  of  their  representatives ;  and  if  3^ou 
say  the  law  of  Congress  is  valid,  and  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
such,  why,  the  present  delegation  will  retire,  and  another  will  be 
sent  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  existing  law  of  the  State. 
In  either  event,  the  people,  if  represented  at  all,  ought  certainly 
to  be  represented  by  those  of  their  own  choice. 

I  have  been  told  by  some,  that  my  position  was  like  that  of  a 


RIGHT   OF   MEMBERS  TO   THEIR   SEATS.  263 

suitor  at  court,  who  claims  a  hearing,  and  at  the  same  time, 
denies  his  right.  By  no  means,  sir.  My  position  is  more  like 
that  of  the  representative  of  a  suitor  at  court,  when  there  is  no 
doubt  as  to  the  right  of  recovery,  but  some  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  right  way  to  be  pursued  in  obtaining  it,  and  which  is 
not  to  be  settled  by  the  suitor  or  his  representative,  but  by  the 
court. 

Is  a  man  to  be  deprived  of  his  rights  because  he  may  differ 
from  the  court  as  to  the  proper  form  of  action  to  be  brought  ?  Or, 
are  a  people  to  be  disfranchised,  because  they  may  differ  with  this 
House,  as  to  the  proper  and  legal  mode  of  election  ?  When  a  man 
is  sworn  to  support  a  constitution,  sir,  which  provides  for  its  own 
amendment,  I  hold  he  is  as  much  bound  to  support  an  amend 
ment,  when  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  as  he  was  to  support  the 
original  constitution  ;  and  when  he  is  sworn  to  support  a  constitu 
tion  which  provides  a  tribunal  for  the  settlement  of  any  class  of 
cases  arising  under  it,  where  differences  of  opinion  may  prevail, 
he  is  as  much  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  such  tribunal 
when  made,  and  to  the  extent  made,  until  reversed,  in  any  case 
so  arising,  as  he  was  bound  to  be  governed  by  his  own  opinions 
in  relation  to  it  before.  This,  sir,  is  one  of  the  first  principles  of 
all  societies,  and  part  of  the  obligation  of  every  individual  im 
plied  when  he  becomes  a  citizen  of  government,  or  takes  the  oath 
of  allegiance.  Else,  why  should  there  be  a  tribunal  to  decide 
such  questions,  if  obedience  and  acquiescence  to  the  decision, 
when  made,  should  not  be  regarded,  in  every  sense  of  propriety, 
right  and  proper,  both  politically  and  morally  ? 

Sir,  without  this  rule,  there  could  be  no  order  and  no  govern 
ment  ;  but  every  man  would  set  up  his  own  judgment — or  a  much 
less  safe  guide,  his  own  conscience — as  the  rule  of  his  own  acts  ; 
and  the  most  lawless  anarchy  would  be  the  result. 

Why,  sir,  suppose  the  resolutions  upon  your  table  be  adopted, 
and  the  sitting  members  from  the  four  States  elected  by  general 
ticket  be  declared  by  a  vote  of  the  House  to  have  .been  duly 
elected,  and  your  legislation  proceeds :  will  the  constitutionality 
of  the  acts  passed  by  this  Congress  be  inquirable  into  by  the 
courts  of  the  country  upon  this  ground  ?  Suppose,  during  the 
session,  some  law  be  passed,  and  carried  by  the  votes  of  those 
members  whose  right  to  seats  is  now  under  consideration,  mak 
ing  certain  acts  criminal,  and  subject  to  severe  punishment ;  and 
hereafter,  some  individual,  charged  with  a  violation  of  that  law, 
should  raise  the  question  of  constitutionality,  and  insist,  by  way 
of  defence,  that  it  was  no  law,  not  having  been  passed  by  a  Con 
gress  constitutionally  organized :  would  his  plea  avail  him  any 
thing?  or  would  it  be  entertained  by  any  court.  Would  not 
every  judge  be  bound  by  the  settlement  of  that  question  by  this 
House,  to  whom  it  has,  by  the  constitution,  been  wisely  and 
exclusively  committed?  I  apprehend  that  he  would,  sir  ;  and  that, 
too,  notwithstanding  his  own  opinion  might  be  opposed  to  that 


264  BIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO    THEIR   SEATS. 

of  a  majorit^y  of  this  House  upon  the  question  now  before  it.  The 
judge  would  be  shielded  with  the  consciousness  that,  if  the 
constitution  were  violated,  it  would  not  be  by  his  decision  ;  and 
so,  sir,  with  me ;  if  a  constitutional  law  in  the  decision  of  this 
question  be  disregard,  it  will  not  be  by  my  vote  or  influence. 
But  as  I  am  sworn  to  support  and  defend  that  instrument,  I  do 
so  to-day,  and  to  the  utmost  of  my  ability ;  and  if  I  fail  in  in 
ducing  this  E&ouse  to  agree  with  me  in  opinion  upon  the  question, 
I  must  yield  my  own  to  the  opinions  of  the  majority  of  those 
whose  province  it  is  to  decide  it.  Neither  am  I  unsupported  by 
the  ablest  authority  in  the  correctness  of  my  position. 

Mr.  Madison,  upon  this  subject,  says  : 

"  Has  the  wisest  and  most  conscientious  judge  ever  scrupled 
to  acquiesce  in  decisions  in  which  he  has  been  overruled  by 
the  mature  opinions  of  the  majority  of  his  colleagues,  and 
subsequently  to  conform  himself  thereto,  as  to  authoritative 
expositions  of  the  law  ?  And  is  it  not  reasonable  that  the  same 
view  of  the  official  oath  should  be  taken  by  a  legislator,  acting 
under  the  constituion,  which  is  his  guide,  as  is  taken  by  a  judge 
acting  under  the  law,  which  is  his. 

"  There  is,  in  fact,  and  in  common  understanding,  a  necessity 
of  regarding  a  course  of  practice,  as  above  characterized,  in  the 
light  of  a  legal  rule  for  interpreting  a  law;  and  there  is  a  like  ne- 
cessit}''  of  considering  it  a  constitutional  rule  of  interpreting  a 
constitution." — Niles's  Register,  supplement  to  vol.  43,  p.  28. 

This,  sir,  is  the  rule  by  which  I  am  governed ;  and  I  have  been 
the  more  full  and  explicit  in  giving  it,  because  some,  who  are 
about  as  little  noted  for  their  sagacity  as  their  integrity,  have  af 
fected  to  feel  such  great  surprise  at  what  they  consider  the  strange 
inconsistency  of  my  position. 

Having  said  thus  much  upon  these  points,  I  now  come,  sir,  to 
the  main  question  before  the  House,  which  is.  the  propriety  of 
the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  upon  your  table,  which  declare 
that  the  second  section  of  the  apportionment  act,  before  alluded 
to,  is  not  a  valid  and  operative  law;  and,  in  consequence,  that  the 
elections  in  four  of  the  States  which  have  been  held  in  disregard 
thereof,  are  nevertheless  lawful  and  valid. 

The  language  of  that  section  is  in  the  following  words  :    ' 

"  That  in  every  case  when  a  State  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
representative,  the  number  to  which  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
under  this  apportionment  shall  be  elected  by  districts,  composed 
of  contiguous  territory,  equal  in  number  to  the  number  of  repre 
sentatives  to  which  each  State  may  be  entitled — no  one  district 
electing  more  than  than  one  representative." 

The  object  of  the  section  evidently  was  to  legislate  upon  the 
places  and  manner  of  holding  the  election  of  members  of  this 
House,  so  far  as  to  require  such  elections  to  be  held  by  single 
districts. 

The  authority  upon  which  the  legislation  was  based,  is  the  power 


RIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR  SEATS.  265 

given  to  Congress  in  that  clause  of  the  constitution  alluded  to 
before.  And  so  far  as  form  is  concerned,  it  is  admitted  by  all,  I 
believe,  that  the  section  in  question  passed  strictly  in  pursuance 
of  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  constitution  for  the  enactment  of 
laws ;  that  is,  it  passed  this  House,  the  Senate,  and  received  the 
sanction  of  the  President,  and  is  found  in  the  statute-book  with 
the  other  laws  of  the  land.  And  of  course  this  House  should  re 
quire  some  strong  reasons  to  justify  it  in  the  passage  of  a  resolu 
tion  which  declares  that,  notwithstanding  all  these  sanctions,  it 
is  no  law,  and  of  no  binding  force. 

And  here  I  will  remark  that  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Alabama  [Mr.  BELSER]  as  to  the  proper  rule  which  should  be 
adopted  in  its  construction ;  which  is  the  same  that  all  courts 
adopt  upon  the  construction  of  statutes  touching  their  validity; 
that  is,  such  construction  should  be  given  as  will,  if  possible,  sus 
tain  the  law.  The  power  of  Congress,  the  subject-matter  of  the 
statute,  with  all  its  relations,  should  be  so  considered  and  con 
strued,  that  the  whole  may,  if  possible,  stand ;  or,  as  the  courts 
sa}',  "  ut  res  magis  valeat,  quam  pereat."  Not  that  I  intend  to 
insist  upon  any  advantages  that  might  be  supposed  to  arise  from 
the  latitude  of  this  rule ;  but  I  mention  it  barely  because  a  con 
trary  one  has  been  suggested  by  some. 

I  have,  Mr.  Speaker,  been  an  attentive  listener  during  the  pro 
gress  of  this  debate,  and  I  have,  I  believe,  given  no  less  attention 
to  the  arguments  of  the  gentlemen  who  advocate  the  adoption  of 
the  resolutions,  than  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  the  rea 
sons  which  seem  to  have  led  them  to  the  conclusions  expressed 
in  the  resolutions.  And  I  think,  upon  proper  examination  and 
analysis,  they  will  all  be  found  to  rest  upon  one  of  three  positions : 

1.  That  the  section  in  question  is  inoperative  and  void,  because 
Congress,  by  the  constitution,  has  no  power  to  legislate  upon  the 
subject. 

2.  That  though  Congress  does  possess  the  power  of  regulating 
"  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  members 
of  this  House,  yet  it  is  limited  in  its  exercise  to  the  contingency 
of  the  failure  or  refusal  of  the'  States  to  do  so  ;  which  contingency 
not  having  happened,  it  was  improperly  exercised,  and  therefore 
its  action  is  void. 

3.  That  though  Congress  does  possess  the  power,  and  as  ab 
solutely  as  the  States,  yet  the  section  in  question  is  not  such  a 
full  exercise  of  the  power  as  to  render  it  an  efficient  statute ;  and 
that  it  is  so  materially  defective  in  itself  as  to  be  inoperative  and 
void  as  it  now  stands. 

Those  who  take  the  first  ground  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Mississippi  who  last  addressed  the  House;  and,  as  I  have  already 
answered  that  view,  I  will  say  no  more  upon  it  at  this  time.  The 
report  of  the  committee,  however,  and  a  large  majority  of  those 
who  advocate  the  resolutions,  I  believe  it  will  be  admitted,  do  not 
rest  their  argument  upon  that  ground;  they  rely  exclusively  upon 


266  EIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR  SEATS. 

the  last  two  positions,  neither  of  which  seems  to  me  to  be  any 
more  tenable  than  the  first;  and  each  of  them  I  will  examine  in 
its  order. 

The  first  position,  then,  assumed  by  the  committee,  is,  that  the 
power  of  Congress  over  elections  of  members  of  this  House,  "in 
prescribing  the  times,  places,  and  manner,"  is  a  conditional  or 
contingent  power,  or  one  only  to  be  exercised  upon  the  condition 
or  contingency  of  the  failure  or  refusal  of  the  States  to  do  so ; 
and,  as  the  contingency  upon  which  it  rests  had  not  happened,  its 
exercise  by  the  last  Congress  was  improper  and  void. 

[Mr.  DOUGLASS  (the  author  of  the  report)  here  interrupted,  and 
was  understood  to  deny  that  the  committee  had  taken  that  po 
sition.] 

"  I  think,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  will  be  able  to  show,  not  only  to 
the  House,  but  to  the  gentleman  himself,  that  I  am  not  mistaken 
in  the  position  of  the  report.  I  have  it  before  me,  and  from  it  I 
read  as  follows: 

"  The  privilege  allowed  Congress  of  altering  State  regulations, 
or  making  new  ones,  if  not  in  terms,  is  certainly,  in  spirit  and 
design,  dependent  and  contingent.  If  the  legislatures  of  the  States 
fail  or  refuse  to  act  in  the  premises,  etc.,  then  the  conservative 
power  interposes,  and,  upon  the  principle  of  self-preservation,  au 
thorizes  Congress  to  do  that  which  the  State  legislatures  ought  to 
have  done." 

Moreover,  the  report  goes  on  to  affirm  that  "  the  history  of  the 
constitution,  and  especially  the  section  in  question,  shows  con 
clusively  that  these  were  the  considerations  which  induced  the 
adoption  of  that  provision." 

And  again,  says  the  report,  in  maintenance  of  the  same  prin 
ciple  : 

"After  the  subject  of  this  provision  had  been  fully  and  ably 
discussed,  maturely  considered  and  unanimously  adopted,  the 
latter  clause  of  the  section  conferring  upon  Congress  the  power 
to  make  regulations,  or  alter  those  prescribed  by  the  States,  was 
agreed  to,  with  an  explanation  at  the  time  that  this  was  meant  to 
give  to  the  national  legislature  the*  power  not  only  to  alter  the 
provisions  of  the  States,  but  to  make  regulations  in  case  the  States 
should  fail,  or  refuse  altogether." 

Now,  sir,  this  is  the  argument ;  and  so  far  as  what  is  said 
of  the  explanation  given  at  the  time  is  concerned,  even  that 
certainly  does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  power  con 
ferred  upon  Congress  by  the  clause  was  understood,  either  in 
spirit  or  design,  only  to  be  exercised  in  case  of  the  failure  or 
refusal  of  the  States  to  do  so ;  and  that  the  general  understand 
ing  at  the  time  does  not  warrant  such  conclusion,  I  think 
abundantly  evident  from  the  history  of  that  period.  No  clause 
in  the  constitution  met  with  warmer  opposition  in  the  States  ; 
and  nothing  is  clearer  than  that  it  was  well  understood  that  full 
power  thereby  was  given  to  Congress  to  exercise  absolute  and 


EIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS.  267 

unconditional  legislation  upon  the  subject.  This  is  apparent 
from  the  debates  in  all  the  States,  as  far  as  they  have  been 
preserved ;  and  seven  of  the  States  ratified  the  constitution  with 
a  proposed  amendment  that  the  power,  in  this  section,  should  be 
so  far  restricted  as  to  limit  its  exercise  by  Congress  to  the 
contingency  stated.  The  proposed  amendment  offered  by  Mas 
sachusetts  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  convention  do  therefore  recommend  that  the  following 
alterations  and  provisions  be  introduced  into  the  said  constitu 
tion  :  '  That  Congress  do  not  exercise  the  power  vested  in  them 
by  the  fourth  section  of  the  first  article,  but  in  cases  where  the 
States  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  the  regulations  therein 
mentioned,  or  shall  make  regulations  subversive  of  the  rights  of 
the  people  to  a  free  and  equal  representation  in  Congress  agreea 
ble  to  the  constitution.' " 

The  language  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  Yirginia  is  in  the 
following  wrords : 

"  The  Congress  shall  not  alter,  or  modify,  or  interfere  in  the 
times,  places,  or  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and 
representatives,  or  either  of  them,  except  when  the  legislature 
of  any  State  shall  neglect,  refuse,  or  be  disabled,  by  invasion 
or  rebellion,  to  prescribe  the  same."  And,  at  the  same  time, 
"  enjoined  upon  her  representatives  in  Congress  to  exert  all  their 
influence,  and  use  all  reasonable  and  legal  methods,  to  obtain  a 
ratification  of  the  foregoing  alteration  and  provision,  in  the  man 
ner  provided  by  the  fifth  article  of  the  constitution." 

North  Carolina  proposed  the  following  amendment : 

"  That  Congress  shall  not  alter,  modify,  or  interfere  with  the 
times,  places,  or  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and 
representatives,  or  either  of  them,  except  when  the  legislature  of 
any  State  shall  neglect,  refuse,  or  be  disabled,  by  invasion  or 
rebellion,  to  prescribe  the  same." 

But  it  is  useless  to  multiply  these  instances.  Similar  resolu 
tions,  as  I  have  before  stated,  were  passed  by  seven  of  the  States 
ratifying  the  constitution ;  which  shows  conclusively  that,  how 
ever  much  those  States  may  have  been  opposed  to  the  existence 
of  such  power,  yet,  nevertheless,  it  was  well  understood,  at  the 
time,  that  the  power  did  exist  under  the  constitution  as  ratified. 

Nay,  more,  sir ;  I  have  before  me  the  journals  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  first  Congress,  in  1789;  and,  on  page  86, 
I  find  that  the  following  amendment  to  the  constitution,  which 
had  been  offered  by  Mr.  Burke,  of  South  Carolina,  was  acted 
upon,  to  wit :  * 

"Congress  shall  not  alter,  modify,  or  interfere  in  the  times, 
places,  or  manner  of  holding  elections  of  senators  or  representa 
tives,  except  when  any  State  shall  refltse,  or  neglect,  or  be  unable, 
by  invasion  or  rebellion,  to  make  such  election."  Which  was 
lost.  And  among  those  who  recorded  their  votes  in  the  negative, 
are  Nicholas  Gilman,  Roger  Sherman,  and  James  Madison,  who 


268  EIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO    THEIR   SEATS. 

were  all  members  of  the  convention  that  formed  the  constitution. 
Sir,  can  any  thing  be  clearer,  or  better  established,  than  that  it 
was  well  understood  at  that  day  that  the  absolute  and  uncondi 
tional  power  of  regulating  "  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of 
holding  elections  for  this  House,"  either  in  the  case  of  the  failure 
or  refusal  of  the  States,  or  not,  was  vested  by  the  constitution 
in  the  general  government  ?  And  not  only  this  ?  but  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  wise  men  and  pure  patriots  that  composed  the 
first  Congress,  it  ought  to  remain  there.  And  who  there  was  no 
such  understanding,  as  stated  by  the  majority  of  the  Committee 
of  Elections,  that  it  was  to  be  exercised  only  in  case  of  failure 
or  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  States  ?  That  is  the  limitation  to 
which  the  States  before-mentioned  wished  to  restrict  it  by 
amendment ;  and  that  is  the  limitation  to  which  the  proposed 
amendment  in  the  first  Congress  was  intended  to  restrict  it, 
which  has  never  been  ratified,  leaving  the  power  as  originally 
incorporated  in  the  constitution. 

Sir,  is  more  light  wanted  upon  this  subject  ?  or  do  gentlemen, 
ostrich  like,  expect,  by  hiding  their  own  etyes,  to  extinguish  the 
light  around  from  the  vision  of  others  ?  You  may,  indeed,  en 
shroud  yourself  in  darkness,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  you  may  as 
well  attempt  to  extinguish  the  light  at  noon,  so  long  as  yonder 
sun  courses  his  path  in  the  heavens,  as  to  envelop  this  subject  in 
mystery  or  doubt,  while  the  archives  of  your  country  remain  un- 
obliterated. 

I  come  now,  sir,  to  the  arguments  and  reasons  of  those,  who, 
abandoning  the  grounds  of  the  first  and  second  positions,  attempt 
to  fortify  themselves  under  the  third.  They  admit  that  Congress 
does  possess  the  power,  by  the  4th  section  of  the  first  article 
of  the  constitution,  to  regulate  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of 
holding  elections  for  members  of  this  House,  so  far  as  to  require 
them  to  be  chosen  by  districts  ;  which,  it  is  also  admitted,  was 
the  object  of  the  second  section  of  the  last  apportionment  act. 
They  admit,  also,  that  this  power  in  Congress  is  not  barely  an 
ultimate  one,  to  be  exercised  only  in  case  of  a  failure  or  refusal 
of  the  State  to  exercise  it ;  but  that  it  is  an  absolute  and  con 
trolling  power,  to  be  exercised  at  any  time  according  to  discre 
tion.  But  they  insist  that  the  section  under  consideration  is  not 
such  an  exercise  of  it  as  should  be  regarded  as  law — that  it  was 
only  an  attempt  at  its  exercise  without  such  details  as  are  neces 
sary  at  all  times  to  give  force  and  efficiency  to  legislation — that 
if  Congress  had  gone  on  and  divided  the  States  into  districts,  its 
action  would 'have  been  both  constitutional  and  binding;  but 
that,  as  the  section  now  stands,  it  is  a  perfect  nullity  within  itself, 
until  it  shall  be  perfected  e^her  by  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  or 
this  government,  in  the  formation  of  the  districts,  etc. ;  or,  in  other 
words,  that,  as  it  now  stands,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a  direction, 
or  a  mandamus  to  the  States,  to  form  districts  according  to  a 
general  principle  therein  set  forth,  which  they  say  this  govern- 


RIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS.  269 

ment  has  no  right  to  give.  They  insist  that  from  the  nature  of 
the  State  governments,  and  the  Federal  government,  each  being 
confined  within  its  own  appropriate  sphere  of  action,  Congress 
cannot  constitutionally  pass  any  law,  which  for  its  full  execution, 
will  require  the  States  to  conform  thereto,  or  perfect  by  their 
legislation. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  the  only  plausible  one  to  my  mind 
that  has  been  presented,  for  considering  the  section  in  question 
as  inoperative  as  it  now  stands  upon  the  statute  book  ;  and  to  it 
I  ask  the  particular  attention  of  the  House ;  for  it  is  not  only 
strongly  relied  upon  by  the  majority  of  the  committee  in  their 
report,  but  has  been  repeatedly  urged  in  the  debate  with  a  great 
deal  of  speciousness,  and  by  no  one  with  more  clearness  and 
force,  I  believe,  than  by  my  colleague,  [Mr.  COBB,]  who  addressed 
the  House  on  yesterday  ;  and  }Tet,  I  think  it  will  be  as  unable  to 
bear  the  test  of  examination  as  either  of  the  others.  The  strength 
of  the  argument  in  this  view,  you  will  perceive,  rests  mainly 
upon  the  assumed  principle,  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  Federal 
and  State  governments,  in  our  complicated  form,  in  legislation 
each  is  confined  to  its  own  sphere  ;  and  that  Congress  cannot 
pass  a  law,  valid  in  itself,  or  such  as  should  be  regarded 
efficient  and  operative,  which,  for  its  execution,  will  require 
State  legislation ;  and  that  the  States  are  not  bound,  under  the 
constitution,  to  make  such  legis  lation,  inany  instance,  as  will  be 
necessary  for  the  full  execution  and  operation  of  a  law  of  Con 
gress.  That  the  laws  of  Congress,  to  be  valid,  must  not  depend 
upon  such  State  legislation,  but  must  operate  proprio  vigore,  or 
not  at  all. 

Now,  sir,  if  this  assumed  principle  can  be  shown  to  be  wrong, 
the  whole  argument  which  rests  upon  it,  as  a  matter  of  course 
will  be  overthrown  ;  and  that  it  is  wrong,  I  think  can  be  made  ap 
pear,  both  from  the  constitution  itself,  and  repeated  precedents 
of  legislation  in  our  history.  That  the  principle  assumed  as  a 
general  proposition  is  true,  I  admit ;  but  that  it  is  true  in  any 
case  where  there  is  such  concurrent  jurisdiction,  or  powers  oi* 
legislation,  if  you  please,  given  to  the  States  and  Congress  over 
any  subject,  and  the  controlling  power  conferred  upon  the  latter, 
as  in  the  case  now- under  consideration,  (and  there  are  several 
such  in  the  constitution,)  I  am  disposed  to  question. 

I  will  illustrate,  sir.  By  the  constitution,  it  is  made  the  duty 
of  Congress,  every  ten  years,  from  an  enumeration  made,  to  ap 
portion  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  each  State  may 
be  entitled,  according  to  the  federal  basis.  And  all  that  Congress 
does,  or  has  done  from  the  beginning  of  the  government,  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  is  barely  to  fix  the  ratio  of  representation, 
and  by  law  to  declare  the  number  of  representatives  to  which 
each  State  is  entitled  according  to  the  same.  Of  course,  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  each  State  immediately  to  prescribe  such 
new  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  for  conformity  to  the  new 


270  EIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS. 

ratio.  For  instance  :  in  all  those  States  where  the  district  system 
was  the  existing  mode  of  electing  representatives,  it  has  been 
necessary  for  a  reorganization  of  the  districts,  by  State  legisla 
tion,  in  each  one  of  them,  upon  each  apportionment.  By  the  last 
apportionment,  several  of  the  States  are  entitled  to  a  less  number 
of  representatives  than  before.  Suppose  these  States  had  not 
reorganized  their  districts  in  conformity  with  the  late  apportion 
ment  act,  and  had  sent  the  same  number  of  representatives,  and 
elected  in  the  same  way  as  before,  would  they  be  admitted  upon 
the  ground  that  the  act  was  a  mandamus  to  the  States,  and  that 
Congress  could  pass  no  law  requiring  conformity  on  the  part  of 
the  States  in  their  legislative  action  ?  Or  is  the  second  section 
of  the  apportionment  act  under  consideration  anymore  directory 
or  mandatory  to  the  States  electing  by  general  ticket,  than  the 
first  section  is  to  those  electing  by  districts.  All  the  States  in 
cluded  in  the  latter  class,  I  believe,  have  conformed  to  the  first 
section,  and  without  the  slightest  objection,  as  far  as  I  have 
heard. 

Why,  sir,  since  the  organization  of  the  government,  there  have 
been  six  acts  of  apportionment ;  and  without  giving  their  dates, 
or  detaining  the  House  by  reading  them,  I  will  venture  to  say, 
that  there  has  not  been  one  of  the  six  which  did  not  require  (not 
in  words,  but  from  the  necessit}^  of  the  case)  a  majority  of  the 
States,  in  pursuance  of  their  constitutional  duty,  in  order  to 
secure  a  representation  on  this  floor,  to  pass  laws  reorganizing 
their  districts  in  conformity  to  the  apportionment  of  Congress. 

I  give  this  as  one  instance  of  the  error  of  the  position. 

Another,  is  the  one  alluded  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Yermont 
the  other  day,  [Mr.  COLLAMER,]  relating  to  the  appointment  of 
electors  for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States. 
In  the  second  section  of  the  second  article  of  the  Constitution,  it 
is  provided  that  "  each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  manner  as 
the  legislature  thereof  may  direct,  the  number  of  electors,  equal 
to  the  whole  number  of  senators  and  representatives  to  which  the 
State  may  be  entitled  in  Congress."  And  in  the  fourth  section 
of  the  same  article,  it  is  provided  that  "  Congress  may  determine 
the  time  of  choosing  electors,  and  the  day  on  which  they  shall 
give  their  votes,  which  day  shall  be  the  same  throughout  the 
United  States." 

And  in  exercise  of  the  power  hereby  conferred,  Congress, 
by  act  approved  1st  of  March,  1792,  declared  that  ''electors 
shall  be  appointed  in  each  State,  for  the  election  of  a  President 
and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  within  thirtj^-four  days 
preceding  the  first  Wednesday  in  December,  1192,  and  within 
thirty-four  days  preceding  the  first  Wednesday  in  December  of 
every  fourth  year  succeeding  the  last  election  ;  which  electors 
shall  be  equal  to  the  number  of  senators  and  representatives  to 
which  the  several  States  may  by  law  be  entitled,  at  the  time  when  the 
President  and  Yice-President  thus  to  be  chosen  should  come  into 


RIGHT   OF   MEMBERS  TO   THEIR  SEATS.  271 

office :  Provided,  always,  that,  when  no  apportionment  of  repre 
sentatives  shall  have  been  made,  after  an  enumeration,  at  the  time 
of  choosing  electors,  then  the  number  of  electors  shall  be  accord 
ing  to  the  existing  apportionment  of  senators  and  represen 
tatives." 

This,  sir,  has  been  the  regulation  of  Congress,  under  which 
every  President  of  the  United  States,  from  the  first,  I  believe, 
has  been  elected,  and  to  which  every  State  in  the  Union  has  con 
formed,  as  it  was  in  duty  bound  to  do,  and  without  which  there 
could  have  been  no  election  of  chief  magistrate  within  the  time 
stated. 

But  again.  By  the  16th  clause  of  the  tth  section  of  the  1st 
article  of  the  Constitution,  power  is  conferred  upon  Congress 
"  to  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia, 
and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States  ;  reserving  to  the  States; respectively, 
the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the 
militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress." 

Now,  sir,  as  a  precedent,  I  will  not  refer  to  the  extent  of  power 
claimed  under  this  clause,  in  the  celebrated  army  bill  of  the  ad 
ministration  in  1840,  alluded  to  yesterday  by  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  [MR.  NEWTON,*]  and  which,  I  believe,  was  defended  by 
many  leading  men  upon  this  floor,  who  now  denounce  the  second 
section  of  the  apportionment  act  as  a  mandamus  to  the  States. 
But  I  will  ask  the  attention  of  the  House  to  an  act  approved 
May  8th,  1792,  entitled— 

"  An  act  more  effectually  to  provide  for  the  national  defence, 
by  establishing  a  uniform  militia  throughout  the  United  States." 

The  third  section  of  that  act  is  in  the  following  words : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  Thgit  within  one  year  after  the  passing  of 
this  act.  the  militia  of  the  respective  States  shall  be  arranged  into  divi 
sions,  brigades,  regiments,  battalions,  and  companies,  a*  the  legislatures 
of  each  State  shall  direct ;  and  each  division,  brigade,  and  regiment,  shall 
be  numbered  as  the  formation  thereof,  and  a  record  made  of  such  num 
bers  in  the  adjutant-general's  office  in  each  State.  Each  division,  bri 
gade,  and  regiment,  shall  respectively  take  rank  according  to  their  num 
bers,  reckoning  the  first  lowest  number  highest  in  the  rank.  That,  if  the 
same  be  convenient,  each  brigade  shall  consist  of  four  regiments  ;  each 
regiment  of  two  battalions  ;  each  battalion  of  four  companies  ;  each  com 
pany  of  sixty-four  privates.  The  said  militia  shall  be  officered  by  the 
respective  States  as  follows  :  To  each  division  one  major-general  and  two 
aids-de-camp  with  the  rank  of  major ;  to  each  brigade  one  brigadier- 
general,  with  one  brigade  inspector,  to  serve  also  as  brigade-major,  with 
the  rank  of  major;  to  each  regiment  one  lieutenant-colonel  commandant, 

*  The  39th  section  of  the  celebrated  army  bill  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  was 
in  the  following  words :  "  That  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States,  at 
the  earliest  period  of  time  after  the  adoption  of  the  system,  enact  such 
laws  as  may  be  necessary  to  enrol  and  organize  the  militia  of  the  several 
States  according  to  the  provisions  contained  herein." — See.  Ex.  Doc. 
1839,  '40,  vol.  4,  page  13. 


272  RIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS. 

and  to  each  battalion  one  major,  and  to  each  company  one  captain,  one 
lieutenant,  one  ensign  etc." 

Now,  sir,  this  was  alluded  to  also  the  other  day  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  COLLAMER,]  and,  as  a  precedent  upon 
the  point  now  under  consideration,  I  think  it  is  quite  analogous. 
It  was  a  law  passed  in  1792;  which,  for  its  full  execution,  re 
quired  action  on  the  part  of  the  legislatures  of  the  States  in 
laying  off  and  arranging  the  divisions,  brigades,  etc.,  and  ap 
pointing  officers  according  to  the  direction  of  the  act.  There 
was  nothing  then  said  about  this  act  of  Congress  being  a  manda 
mus  to  the  States,  unauthorized  by  the  constitution,  and  there 
fore  inoperative  and  void,  and  such  as  the  States  should  not  re 
gard.  But  every  State  in  the  Union  immediately  conformed 
thereto ;  and  the  same,  I  believe,  is  the  basis  of  the  militia 
organization  of  the  country  to  this  day. 

Nor  need  I  be  answered,  as  I  have  heard  suggested  in  conversa 
tion,  that  this  measure  was  adopted  before  the  people  were  much 
awakened  to  the  encroachments  of  the  general  government  upon 
the  rights  of  the  States.  If  there  ever  has  been  a  period  in  our 
history,  when  the  line  that  divides  the  powers  of  the  State  and 
federal  governments  from  each  other  was  more  clearly  defined 
and  better  understood  than  at  any  other,  it  was  about  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  this  act.  It  was  then  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  the 
acknowledged  champion  of  the  rights  of  the  States,  was  exercis 
ing  his  greatest  vigilance  in  guarding  his  favorite  object.  It  was 
just  before,  that  even  the  incorporation  of  a  bank  was  considered 
by  him  as  unconstitutional,  because,  amongst  other  objections,  it 
was  supposed  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  States,  in  inter 
fering  with  their  laws  upon  the  subjects  of  mortmain,  descent,  etc. 

And  yet  no  one  amongst  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  the 
rights  of  the  States  at  that  day  seems  to  have  conceived  the  idea 
that  the  act  in  relation  to  the  organization  of  the  militia,  was  in 
the  least  degree  in  violation  of  those  rights,  or  contained  any  un 
authorized  mandamus  to  control  their  legislation. 

Nor  need  I  be  told  that  precedent  is  not  constitutional  power; 
and  that  because  Congress  has  heretofore  passed  unauthorized 
acts,  the  practice  should  be  continued.  I  do  not  refer  to  these 
precedents  for  any  such  purpose.  But  as  I  undertook  to  show 
that  the  principle  upon  which  one  of  the  positions  assumed  by 
the  advocates  of  the  resolution  upon  your  table  rested,  was 
founded  in  error,  I  cite  these  examples  to  show  that  I  am  sus 
tained  in  my  view  of  construction  by  acts  of  the  government, 
dating  back  almost  to  its  beginning;  and  the  constitutionality  or 
validity  of  which  has  never  been  questioned.  And  from  these  in 
stances  and  precedents,  I  respectfully  submit  whether  it  does  not 
appear  that  Congress  may,  in  some  cases,  arising  under  the  con 
stitution,  pass  an  act  good  and  valid  within  itself;  and  yet  one 
which,  for  a  full  execution,  will  require  conforming  legislation  on 
the  part  of  the  States.  To  my  mind,  this  seems  to  be  clear. 


BIGHT   OF   MEMBERS  TO   THEIE   SEATS.  273 

The  only  remaining  question  is,  whether  the  second  section  of 
the  apportionment  act  is  one  of  that  class  and  description.  That 
it  is,  seems  a  fair  inference  from  its  striking  analogy  to  the  cases 
just  referred  to.  But  to  put  the  matter  beyond  doubt,  if  possi 
ble,  as  it  seems  to  me,  I  will  give  some  other  illustrations,  touch 
ing  the  validity  of  acts  of  Congress  upon  subjects  over  which  con 
current  legislative  power  is  given  to  the  State  and  federal  gov 
ernments;  answering,  as  I  proceed,  other  arguments  of  the  ad 
vocates  of  the  resolutions ;  and  in  conclusion,  show  that  the  sec 
tion  in  question  was  just  such  an  exercise  of  this  power  by  Con 
gress  as  was  originally  intended  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution. 

And  first,  I  will  take  the  case  put  by  the  majority  of  the  com 
mittee  in  the  report,  which  I  apprehend  to  be  one  of  the  strongest 
to  illustrate  their  position. 

"  Congress,"  say  they,  "possess  the  power  under  the  constitu 
tion  to  establish  uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies 
throughout  the  United  States."  And  further,  they  say,  "  suppose 
that  Congress,  instead  of  passing  the  late  bankrupt  law,  had  con 
tented  itself  with  a  simple  declaration,  similar  to  the  second  sec 
tion  of  the  apportionment  act,  that  all  laws  upon  the  subject  of 
bankruptcies  should  be  uniform  in  each  State  of  the  Union ;  that 
persons  might  be  discharged  from  the  payment  of  their  just  debts 
upon  their  own  application,  without  the  consent  of  their  creditors, 
upon  the  surrender  of  all  their  property,  except  so  much  as  the  court 
might  allow  them  to  retain,  not  exceeding  three  hundred  dollars; 
and  that  no  man  should  be  released  from  his  obligations  under 
any  law  which  did  not  conform  to  these  abstract  principles :  would 
these  rules  be  valid  and  impose  upon  the  States  the  duty  of  so 
changing  their  local  legislation  as  to  conform  to  the  abstractions 
established  by  Congress?  "If  this  cannot  be  done  in  case  of 
bankruptcy,"  say  they,  "upon  what  principle  is  it  that  Congress 
may  direct  the  legislative  discretion  of  the  States  in  regard  to 
elections?"  I  answer,  the  cases  are  not  analagous.  The  subject 
of  bankruptcies  is  given  exclusively  to  Congress  by  the  constitu 
tion.  To  make  the  cases  similar,  let  us  suppose  that  the  consti 
tution  had  declared  that  "the  States  respectively  shall  establish 
laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcy;  but  Congress  may,  at  any 
time,  make  or  alter  the  same."  And  suppose,  in  different  States, 
various  rules  had  been  established,  conflicting  with  each  other ; 
and  Congress,  for  th§  purpose  of  creating  uniformity  upon  this 
subject,  had  then  established  the  general  principle  supposed  by 
the  committee :  the  cases  would  then  be  strictly  analagous  ;  and 
I  apprehend  that  no  court  in  the  Union,  under  such  circumstances, 
would  permit  a  discharge  of  a  bankrupt  under  any  State  regula 
tions  made  in  disregard  of  the  general  principle  thus  established 
by  Congress. 

Or  take  the  clause  of  the  constitution  which  gives  Congress 
the  power  to  establish  uniform  laws  for  the  naturalization  of 
foreigners.     Suppose,  instead  of  this  power  being  given  exclu- 
18 


274  EIGHT   OF    MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS. 

sively  to  Congress,  it  had  been  given  primarily  to  the  States  to 
establish  such  laws,  with  the  proviso  that  Congress  might,  at  any 
time,  make  or  alter  the  same.  And  suppose,  in  some  of  the 
States,  laws  had  been  passed  requiring  a  residence  of  ten  years 
on  the  part  of  any  alien,  before  he  could  be  naturalized,  or  per 
mitted  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a  citizen ;  and  in  other  States 
the  period  was  twenty  years  ;  and  in  some  of  the  States  nothing 
should  be  required  but  an  oath  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  to 
support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  under  this 
state  of  things,  Congress  should  pass  a  general  law  declaring 
that  two  years'  residence  should  be  sufficient ;  but  that,  in  every 
instance  of  naturalization,  the  proceedings  should  be  had  before 
some  court  of  record,  etc.,  can  any  man  doubt  that  such  general 
law  would  be  valid,  or  that  any  court  would  hold  the  proceeding 
had  upon  the  naturalization  of  any  alien,  valid,  which  did  not 
conform  thereto?  If  not,  no  longer  may  the  "constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  be 
regarded  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

But,  sir,  my  colleague  [Mr.  COBB]  says  that  the  concurrent 
and  even  controlling  power  of  Congress  over  the  subject  of  con 
gressional  elections,  by  which  they  can  "  make"  or  "  alter"  the 
regulations  "  of  time,  place,  and  manner,"  does  not  authorize 
them  barely  to  "  annul"  and  "  abrogate,"  as  he  says  this  act  does. 
And  though  I  shall  be  able,  I  think,  to  show,  presently,  most 
clearly,  that  his  view  of  the  act  in  this  particular  is  incorrect ; 
yet,  in  answer  to  him,  here  I  put  the  case  supposed  by  the 
minority  of  the  committee  in  their  report. 

Has  not  Congress  the  same,  and  even  greater  power  over  the 
whole  subject,  than  the  States  have  ?  My  colleague  admits  that 
Congress  has.  Then,  suppose  that  the  State  of  Georgia  had,  by 
law,  declared  the  same  general  principle  which  the  act  under  con 
sideration  has,  and  had  done  nothing  more,  and  such  act  had 
passed  both  Houses  of  our  legislature,  and  been  signed  by  the 
governor :  would  it  not  have  operated  as  a  repeal  of  the  general- 
ticket  system  ?  He  admits  that  it  would.  But  then,  says  he, 
would  be  the  time  for  the  exercise  of  this  conservative  principle 
in  the  constitution  on  the  part  of  Congress.  Grant  the  fact :  but 
the  case  I  put  to  him  is,  if  the  State  had  so  declared,  by  law, 
would  she  be  entitled  to  a  representation  on  this  floor  by 
members  elected  according  to  the  old  law,  or  could  she  have 
held  any  valid  election  until  there  had  been  further  legislation 
upon  the  subject,  either  by  Congress  or  her  own  legislature  ? 
That  is  the  question.  And  if  Congress  has  the  same  power  as 
the  State,  is  not  the  result  practically  the  same,  whether  the  law 
was  passed  by  this  government  or  the  State  government  ?  But 
I  said  his  view  of  the  law,  in  this  particular,  I  conceived  to  be 
wrong.  He  says  the  power  to  "  make"  is  not  a  power  to  "  un 
make/'  and  the  power  to  "  alter"  is  not  a  power  barely  to  "  repeal 
or  annul ;"  and  that,  when  Congress  undertakes  to  alter  any  ex- 


RIGHT    OF   MEMBERS    TO    THEIR   SEATS.  275 

isting  State  mode  or  manner  of  holding  elections,  it  must  not  be 
a  bare  repeal  of  such  mode  or  manner,  but  something  should  be 
substituted  for  the  provision  changed.  And  I  say,  sir,  such  is 
the  fact  in  relation  to  the  act  under  consideration ;  and,  without 
inquiring  into  the  correctness  of  his  position  in  general,  it  is 
sufficient  for  me  to  say  that  it  does  not  apply  to  this  case ;  for 
the  act  of  Congress  is  not  a  repeal,  but  something  is  substituted 
in  lieu  of  what  is  altered,  as  far  as  the  alteration  goes.  It 
altered,  if  you  please,  the  general-ticket,  and  substituted  the 
single-district  system  in  its  stead,  which,  I  apprehend,  was  exer 
cising  the  power  over  the  subject  conferred  upon  Congress  in 
just  such  a  way  and  sense  as  was  originally  intended  by  the 
frame  rs  of  the  constitution.  Their  object  in  giving  the  control 
ling  power  to  Congress,  was  to  give  Congress  power  to  establish 
general  principles  upon  the  subject  of  elections  for  the  purpose 
of  having  uniformity  throughout  the  country,  leaving  the  details 
and  particulars  to  the  action  of  the  State  legislatures.  For, 
when  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  Virginia  convention,  was  asked  by  Mr. 
Monroe,  "  Why  Congress  had  the  ultimate  control  over  the  times, 
places,  and  manner,  of  holding  elections  ?" — he  said,  "  It  was 
thought  that  the  regulations  of  time,  place,  and  manner,  of  elect 
ing  representatives  should  be  uniform  throughout  the  continent. 
Some  States  might  regulate  the  elections  upon  principles  of 
equality,  and  others  might  regulate  them  otherwise.  It  was 
found  necessary  to  leave  the  regulation  of  them  in  the  first  place 
to  the  State  governments,  as  being  best  acquainted  with  the  situ 
ation  of  the  people,  subject  to  the  control  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  in  order  to  enable  it  to  produce  uniformity,  and  prevent 
its  own  dissolution.  And  considering  the  State  government  and 
the  general  government  as  distinct  bodies,  acting  in  different  and 
independent  capacities  for  the  people,  it  was  thought  that  par 
ticular  regulations  should  be  submitted  to  the  former,  and  the 
general  regulations  to  the  latter." 

Now,  I  would  ask,  what  Mr.  Madison  could  have  meant  by  gen 
eral  regulations,  if  he  did  not  intend  to  include  just  such  a  general 
principle  or  regulation  as  that  contained  in  the  apportionment 
act,  providing  that  all  the  members  of  this  House,  in  all  the 
States,  should  be  elected  by  single  districts ;  and  leaving,  as  was 
originally  thought  best,  the  particular  reglations — the  details, 
if  you  please — the  laying  off  the  districts,  etc. — to  the  State  gov 
ernments.  But  so  far  as  the  argument  of  my  colleague  upon 
this  point  is  concerned,  he  is  certainly  fully  answered  in  this : 
that  Congress  has  substituted  something  in  lieu  of  the  provision 
altered.  It  repealed — or  annulled,  if  he  will  have  it  so — the 
general-ticket,  and  substituted  in  its  place  the  single-district 
system. 

It  seems  to  me,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  be  clear,  not  only  that 
Congress  may,  in  some  instances,  pass  a  law  constitutional  and 
valid  in  itself,  which  will,  nevertheless,  require  legislation  on  the 


276  RIGHT   OF    MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS. 

part  of  the  States  before  its  operation  can  be  full  and  efficient, 
but  that  the  second  section  of  the  apportionment  act  is  just  such 
a  law;  and,  in  exercising  the  power  over  the  subject-matter, 
Congress  went  just  so  far  as  was  originally  thought  to  be  best, 
and  no  further ;  and,  having  arrived  at  this  conclusion,  I  will  say 
nothing  more  upon  this  subject,  but  respectfully  submit  to  the 
House  whether,  in  the  course  of  what  has  been  said,  it  has  not 
been  made  to  appear — 

1.  That  the  "  power  of  districting  "  is  embraced  in  the  terms, 
"times,  places  and  manner  of  holding  elections,"  as  used  in  the 
constitution,  and  consequently  is  vested  in  Congress. 

2.  That  the  power  in  Congress  to  regulate  the  times,  places, 
and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  members  of  this  House,  is 
neither,  in  letter  or  spirit,  conditional  or  contingent,  dependent 
upon  the  failure  or  refusal  of  the  States  to  exercise  it ;  but  is  full 
and  absolute,  and  to  be  exercised,  as  all  other  such  powers,  ac 
cording  to  circumstances,  and  a  prudent  discretion. 

3.  That  the  second  section  of  the  last  apportionment  act  (the 
object  of  which  was  to  legislate  upon  this  subject  so  far  as  to  se 
cure  or  establish  uniformity  of  elections  in  all  the  States  upon 
the  single-district  plan)  seeks  to  do  nothing  which  is  not  clearly 
within  the  power  of  Congress ;  and,  so  far  from  being  so  imper 
fect  within  itself  as  to  justify  its  being  considered  inefficient  or 
inoperative  on  that  account,  it  is  just  such  an  exercise  of  the 
power  of  Congress  over  the  premises  as  has  often  been  exercised 
over  other  subjects,  under  other  similar  powers,  and  just  such  an 
one  as  was  originally  thought  to  be  best  by  the  framers  of  the 
constitution  in  this  case ;  and,  therefore,  under  no  consideration, 
should  it  be  pronounced  by  this  House  as  either  void,  invalid,  or 
inoperative. 

And  here,  sir,  I  might  perhaps  properly  close  what  I  have  to 
say  upon  this  occasion,  but  there  are  one  or  two  other  matters 
growing  out  of  this  subject,  to  which  I  wish  briefly  to  allude  be 
fore  doing  so. 

The  majority  of  the  Committee  of  Elections,  in  their  report 
which  is  now  under  consideration,  affirm  that  the  "second  section 
of  the  act  of  apportionment  is  an  attempt,  by  the  introduction 
of  a  new  principle,  to  subvert  the  entire  system,  of  legislation 
adopted  by  the  several  States  Of  the  Union,  and  to  compel  them 
to  conform  to  certain  rules  established  by  Congress  for  their 
government. 

Sir,  I  cannot  agree  with  the  committee  in  opinion  that  such  was 
either  the  object  of  the  act  in  question,  or  can,  in  any  way,  be  its 
consequence.  If  so,  I  should  be  the  last  to  'advocate  the  measure. 
I  consider  myself  as  one  of  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  that  the 
permanency  of  our  institutions  can  only  be  preserved  by  confining 
the  action  of  the  State  and  federal  governments  each  to  its  own 
proper  sphere ;  and  that,  while  there  should  be  no  encroachment 
upon  the  rights  of  the  States  by  this  government,  there  should 


RIGHT    OF    MEMBERS   TO    THEIR   SEATS.  277 

also,  on  their  part,  be  no  disobedience  or  failure  to  perform  their 
duties  according  to  the  terms  of  the  constitutional  compact. 

But,  sir,  is  it  true  that  the  second  section  of  the  act  alluded  to 
does  subvert  the  entire  system  of  State  legislation,  or  even  at 
tempts  to  do  so  ?  Have  not  all  the  States  of  the  Union  conformed 
thereto  but  four.  Yea,  all  but  three — for  Georgia  is  now  amongst 
those  which  have  established  the  single-district  plan  of  electing 
members  to  this  House.  And  is  not  the  system  of  our  State 
legislation  as  fixed  and  firm  as  ever  ?  Do  we  not  regulate  all  such 
matters  as  belong  exclusively  to  ourselves,  as  fully  and  as  abso 
lutely  as  before  ?  Have  we  not  our  legislatures,  our  executives, 
our  judiciary,  and  all  our  officers,  military  and  civil  ?  And  do 
not  all  things  move  on  as  smoothly  and  harmoniously  as  before? 
Sir,  I  do  not  see  this  entire  subversion  and  breaking  up  of  all 
the  State  institutions  complained  of  by  the  committee ;  and  sup 
pose  it  must  have  its  origin  only  in  the  heat  of  their  own 
imagination.  And  I  only  allude  to  it  to  show  the  extravagance 
of  the  views  entertained  by  the  committee  upon  this  subject,  and 
which  forms  one  of  the  links  in  that  chain  of  argument  by  which 
they  come  to  the  conclusions  expressed  in  the  resolutions.  An 
other  point  I  would  call  attention  to,  is  the  remark  made  the 
other  day  by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  KENNEDY]. 

He  spoke  of  this  as  being  a  party  question  ;  and  said  all  the 
democrats  were  made  up  in  mind  upon  one  side,  and  all  the  whigs 
upon  the  other. 

Now,  sir,  though  I  admit  that  the  whigs  are  mostly  united 
upon  one  side  of  this  question,  and  that  a  large  majority  of  the 
democratic  party  upon  this  floor  are  also  united  on  the  other  side 
(which  I  regret  to  see  upon  any  great  constitutional  question,) 
yet,  if  I  mistake  not,  this  feature  originated  with  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  democratic  party  in  the  last  Congress,  who  now  sits 
before  me  [Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  South  Carolina].  And  on  the 
journals  of  that  Congress,  which  are  now  before  me,  I  see  the 
names  of  several  of  that  party  recorded  in  favor  of  the  measure. 

And  who,  sir,  moved,  the  other  day,  the  adoption  of  the 
minority  report  ?  Was  it  not  the  gentleman  from  Alabama  [Mr. 
BELSER] — a  member  of  the  democratic  party,  and  one  who  favored 
the  House  also  with  a  very  able  argument  in  favor  of  the  validity 
of  the  section  in  question. 

Another  gentleman  [Mr.  ELMER]  said,  the  other  day,  that  he 
considered  this  question  as  involving  the  great  principle  which 
at  first  divided  parties  in  this  country — the  federal,  or  those  in 
favor  of  a  strong  national  government,  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
republican,  or  those  opposed  thereto,  on  the  other.  If  so,  I  ask 
the  gentleman  on  which  side  of  the  line  does  he  place  himself 
and  his  friends.  Certainly  he  is  not  on  that  side  of  the  question 
upon  which  the  distinguished  leaders  of  the  republican  party 
stood  in  their  day.  I  had  thought  that  Mr.  Madison  stood  amongst 
the  first  in  the  republican  ranks.  I  care  not  by  what  party  name 


278  EIGHT   OF   MEMBERS   TO   THEIR   SEATS. 

you  characterize  his  position.  In  this  matter,  as  in  most  others 
of  a  political  nature,  I  profess  to  belong  to  his  school ;  and  I 
care  not  whether  you  call  him  a  federalist,  a  republican,  or  a 
democrat.  I  regard  the  name  but  little.  We,  on  the  whig  side, 
however,  certainly  follow  in  his  lead  upon  this  question,  as  I 
have  before  shown. 

Upon  the  general  policy  of  the  single-district  system,  or  its 
relative  merits,  compared  with  the  general  ticket,  I  do  not  know, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  it  would  be  proper,  at  this  time,  to  say  any 
thing.  But  I  should  not  feel  that  I  had  discharged  my  duty 
fully,  if  I  permitted  the  occasion  to  pass  without  at  least  giving 
the  expression  of  my  opinion  quite  as  decidedly  in  favor  of  the 
policy  as  the  validity  of  the  act  now  under  consideration.  I  am, 
sir,  a  district  man ;  and  believe  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of 
both  parties,  of  the  State  from  which  I  come,  upon  this  subject 
agree  with  me  in  sentiment. 

Sir,  it  is  the  most  equal  system.  It  is  the  most  republican. 
It  gives  every  section  of  the  State  a  representative.  It  gives  the 
minority  in  the  State  a  voice  in  the  national  councils.  It  in 
creases  the  responsibility  of  the  representative  to  his  constituents, 
and  better  enables  the  constituents,  from  personal  acquaintance 
and  intercourse,  to  judge  correctly  of  the  man  to  whom  they 
confide  the  important  trust  of  legislating  for  them.  But  I  cannot 
enumerate  the  advantages  of  this  system  at  this  time.  I  will 
barely,  however,  add  that,  if  from  no  other  consideration,  I 
should  be  in  favor  of  it  from  its  conservative  tendency.  Under  its 
operation,  parties  in  the  different  States  are  more  nearly  balanced 
against  themselves,  and  their  violence  is  more  nearly  neutralized 
by  its  counteraction.  This  tends  very  much  to  check  that  high 
degree  of  excitement,  which  otherwise  would  prevail  on  many 
questions,  and  might  be  most  deleterious  in  its  consequences. 
To  be  useful  and  salutary,  laws  must  have  some  continuance  and 
stability.  But  if  the  opposite  principle  should  prevail,  or,  if 
even  the  four  larger  States  in  the  Union  should  adopt  the  gen 
eral  ticket  mode  of  election,  who  is  so  careless  an  observer 
of  men  and  things  as  not  to  see  the  consequences  that  would 
result  ? 

The  representatives  from  each  of  these  States,  instead  of  being 
divided  as  they  now  are,  so  as  almost  to  balance  each  other  in 
party  strength,  would  most  probably  all  be  on  the  same  side  of 
the  question  ;  and  might,  perhaps,  be  elected  by  only  a  few  hun 
dred  majority  in  their  respective  States  ;  and  to  the  next  Con 
gress  another  delegation,  equal  in  number  and  equally  divided 
on  the  other  political  side,  might  be  returned  by  about  as  large 
a  majority  the  other  way.  The  effect  would  be  an  entire  change 
of  measures  ;  for  the  past  admonishes,  and  the  present  speaks 
in  language  not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  party  rules  every 
thing. 

Sir,  amongst  the  dangers  to  which  our  system  of  government 


EIGHT   OF    MEMBERS    TO    THEIR   SEATS.  279 

is  exposed,  I  consider  as  not  amongst  the  least,  the  effects  upon 
the  public  interests  of  the  country  of  those  fearful  shocks  pro 
duced  by  the  sudden  change  of  such  large  party  majorities  upon 
this  floor.  The  human  system,  in  its  soundest  health  and  fullest 
vigor  and  strength,  cannot  long  sustain  its  healthful  action 
against  quick  transitions  from  the  extremes  of  temperature.  Sir, 
the  most  deeply  laid  and  substantially  built  of  human  edifices 
cannot  stand  amidst  the  oscillations  of  an  unsteady  earth ;  nor 
can  the  government  of  a  free  people,  the  noblest  of  all  human 
structures,  remain  firm,  if  its  elements  and  foundations  are  sub 
ject  to  constant  vibrations.  Its  basis  is  public  opinion ;  and  the 
elements  of  the  human  mind  are  not  unlike  those  of  the  atmo 
sphere  about  us — which,  however,  still,  and  calm,  and  quiet  to-day, 
may  be  roused  into  the  whirlwind  to-morrow.  And  as  the  mild 
air  we  breathe,  when  put  into  commotion,  assumes  all  the  power 
and  terrific  force  of  the  tornado,  laying  waste  and  in  ruin  every 
thing  in  its  desolating  sweep  ;  so  with  the  passions,  prejudices, 
and  ambition  of  men,  when  excited  and  aroused  into  factious 
strife ;  without  reason  or  argument  to  control  their  action,  every 
thing  relating  to  order,  right,  law,  or  constitution,  is  equally  dis 
regarded,  and  government  itself  cannot  be  saved  from  its  ruth 
less  destruction.  Wise  legislation  should  always  guard  against 
every  thing  tending  to  promote  such  excitements.  It  was  in 
this  view  of  this  subject,  and  to  guard,  as  far  as  possible,  against 
the  liability  of  such  results,  that  the  same  wise  statesman — the 
pure  patriot,  the  sage  of  Montpelier — to  whom  I  have  before 
alluded,  while  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  was  before  the 
American  people,  urged  upon  them  the  necessity  of  establishing 
such  checks  and  restraints  in  their  government  as  would  be  a 
"  defence  for  them  against  their  own  temporary  errors  and  delu 
sions'' — assuring  them  that,  if  the  people  of  Athens  had  had  such 
provident  safeguards  for  their  protection,  "they  might  have  es 
caped  the  indelible  reproach  of  decreeing  to  the  same  citizens  the 
hemlock  on  one  day,  and  statues  on  the  next." 

Sir,  there  was  wisdom  and  sound  philosophy  in  these  instruc 
tions,  which  were  no  more  proper  to  be  duly  considered  and  re 
garded  in  the  formation  of  a  constitution  than  in  every  species 
of  legislation,  when  the  same  object  can  be  obtained.  And  the 
district  system  I  consider  one  of  those  checks  and  safeguards 
which,  I  trust,  will  never  be  abandoned. 

I  thank  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  its  attentive  hearing.  I 
will  trespass  no  longer  upon  its  patience.  I  have  given  you  my 
views  upon  this  subject.  It  was  due  to  myself,  to  the  country, 
and  particularly  to  my  constituents,  that  I  should  do  so.  I  may 
be  wrong  in  my  opinions.  I  submit  them  to  your  considera 
tion  ;  and  in  the  decision  of  the  House  I  shall  feel  bound  to  ac 
quiesce. 


280  SPEECH   ON    THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  JOINT   RESOLUTION  FOR  THE  AN 
NEXATION  OF  TEXAS. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JANUARY  25,  1845. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN: — It  is  more  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  myself, 
that  my  position  and  views  may  be  correctly  understood  in  the 
vote  I  may  give  on  the  several  propositions  now  upon  the  table, 
as  they  may  be  severally  presented  when  the  hour  of  taking  the 
vote  arrives,  than  from  any  expectation  of  saying  any  thing  in 
teresting  to  the  House,  that  I  now  venture  to  invite  the  attention 
of  members  to  what  I  am  about  to  offer  for  their  consideration. 
The  subject  before  us  is  of  no  ordinary  importance.  Its  magni 
tude  seems  to  be  duly  felt  by  every  one.  And  seldom,  perhaps, 
if  ever,  has  it  been  surpassed  in  interest  by  any  that  have  ever 
been  discussed  within  these  walls.  It  is  a  matter  of  great  con 
cern,  as  well  to  the  people  of  Texas  as  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  Both  countries,  therefore,  are  anxiously  watching  its 
progress ;  for  it  involves,  to  some  extent,  the  harmony,  well 
being,  and  destinies  of  both.  I  have  considered  it  a  grave  and 
momentous  question  from  the  time  of  its  first  agitation.  And 
the  same  views  must  have  struck  not  only  the  politician  and 
statesman,  but  the  most  careless  observer  of  public  affairs  and 
passing  events.  It  is  also  a  question  which,  to  me,  loses  none 
of  its  interest  as  its  decision  approaches.  Its  vastness  and  mag 
nitude,  like  great  objects  in  nature,  swell  out  and  enlarge  as  we 
come  nearer  to  it.  The  mountain  in  the  distance,  clothed  in  its 
"azure  hue,"  looks  all  smooth  and  even;  but  experience  as  well 
as  poetry  tells  us  it  is  the  distance  that  gives  "  enchantment  to 
the  view."  Surveyed  at  its  base,  in  the  gloomy  shade  of  its 
august  frown,  it  no  longer  presents  the  delusive  prospect  of  an 
easy,  an  enticing  ascent.  The  abrupt  front  and  rugged  surface 
too  plainly  show  the  dangers  and  difficulties  that  beset  and 
enrivon  its  few  and  narrow  passes. 

So,  sir,  with  this  subject,  as  we  approach  nearer  to  it,  its  sur 
face  is  far  from  appearing  even  and  smooth.  Already  we  see  its 
projecting  rocks — the  high  impending  cliffs — the  deep  ravines — 
the  frightful  chasms — and  sometimes,  I  must  confess,  I  fancy  I 
hear  the  portentous  rumbling  of  its  slumbering  volcanic  fires. 
May  God  grant  that  my  apprehensions  may  prove  to  be  founded 
only  in  alarm,  or  that  their  destructive  energies  may  never  be 
fully  awakened  and  actively  aroused. 

Before  attempting,  however,  to  encounter  its  difficulties  or  to 
surmount  its  heights,  I  will  premise  by  stating,  that,  upon  the 
abstract  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas,  or  the  union  of  the 
government  of  that  country  with  this,  upon  just  and  proper  prin- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  281 

ciples,  I  am  favorably  inclined,  and  have  been  from  the  beginning. 
But  I  am  far  from  saying  that  I  am  in  favor  of  any  kind  of  a 
union,  or  that  I  am  prepared  to  vote,  as  some  gentlemen  have 
said  for  themselves,  for  either  or  any  of  the  plans  for  annexation 
which  have  been  referred  to  this  committee.  With  me,  much 
depends  upon  the  form,  the  nature,  and  the  terms  of  the  proposi 
tion  ;  for  while  I  might  yield  a  willing  and  cordial  support  to 
one,  I  should  not  hesitate  to  give  a  similar  opposition  to  another. 
I  am  far  from  declaring  myself  for  Texas  any  how  and  in  any 
way.  The  benefits  to  be  derived  from  all  human  institutions,  and 
the  practical  usefulness  of  all  measures,  even  the  wisest,  depend 
eminently  on  detail — and  upon  my  opinion  of  the  propriety  of 
the  details  of  the  several  plans  now  before  the  committee  will 
depend  my  vote  when  the  question  comes  to  be  taken  upon  them, 
respectively.  As  much  as  I  desire  this  addition  to  our  Republic 
upon  what  I  conceive  to  be  correct  and  proper  principles,  yet 
upon  others,  and  upon  some  of  those  now  before  us,  I  should  not 
hesitate  to  reject  it,  as  one  of  the  greatest  possible  evils  with 
which  we  could  be  cursed. 

In  what  I  have  to  say,  therefore,  for  greater  perspicuity,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  being  better  understood  in  relation  to  the 
various  plans,  I  will,  if  the  committee  will  bear  with  me,  proceed 
to  state — 

In  the  first  place,  what  kind  of  a  proposition  I  will  not  support ; 
secondly,  what  kind  of  a  one  I  will  support ;  thirdly,  notice  some 
of  the  objections  I  have  heard  in  opposition ;  and,  lastly,  if  my 
time  permits,  offer  some  of  the  reasons  which  influence  me  in  sup 
porting  such  a  measure  as  I  shall  state. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  I  wish  it  distinctly  understood,  that  I 
am  opposed  to  the  plan  reported  by  the  chairman  (Mr.  C.  J. 
INGERSOLL)  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  That  is  the 
plan  which  is  now  immediately  before  us.  It  is  an  exact  copy  of 
the  treaty  rejected  by  the  Senate  last  spring,  and  which  I  have 
never  failed,  upon  all  proper  occasions,  to  condemn,  ever  since 
its  provisions  were  made  known.  My  objections  to  it  are  two 
fold.  It  leaves  the  slave vj  question,  upon  which  so  much  has 
been  said  in  this  debate,  unsettled ;  and  it  also  provides  for  the 
assumption  by  this  government  of  the  debts  of  Texas. 

My  friend  and  colleague  (Mr.  HARALSON)  yesterday,  and 
another  friend  and  colleague  (Mr.  COBB)  whom  I  now  see  in  his 
seat,  the  day  before,  stated  that  in  Georgia  men  of  all  parties 
were  in  favor  of  annexation ;  but  neither  of  those  gentlemen,  I 
presume,  would  venture  to  assert  that  any  party  in  that  State  are 
favorable  to  annexation  upon  the  terms  of  that  treaty. 

[Mr.  HARALSON  interrupted,  and  was  understood  to  say  that 
what  he  had  stated,  and  now  repeated,  was,  that  the  people  of 
Georgia  were  in  favor  of  immediate  annexation,  and  he  was  pre 
pared  to  carry  out  their  wishes  in  any  way  the  object  could  be 
accomplished.] 


282  SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF  TEXAS. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  I  suppose  the  gentleman  is  prepared  to 
vote  for  the  terms  of  that  treaty. 

[Mr.  HARALSON  again  replied  by  saying,  as  he  was  understood, 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  be  driven  off  by  a  quibble  of  that  sort ; 
he  was  ready  to  vote  for  any  proper  plan.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued.  No  quibble,  Mr.  Chairman.  I,  too, 
am  prepared  to  vote  for  any  proper  plan  ;  but  is  that  treaty,  the 
proposition  in  substance  now  before  us,  a  proper  plan  ?  That  is 
the  question. 

That  party  with  which  I  act  in  that  State  has  always  been  in 
favor  of  annexation  as  soon  as  it  could  be  honorably,  peaceably, 
properly,  and  practically  done,  but  no  sooner. 

And  it  is  true,  that  the  party  with  which  my  colleague  acts, 
during  the  late  canvass,  went  for  "  immediate  annexation,"  as  he 
stated — some  of  them  upon  one  plan,  and  some  upon  another, 
and  some  upon  no  plan  in  particular,  except  to  get  the  territory 
in  any  way  possible,  and  then  to  "  lottery  it  off"  amongst  the 
people.  And  calculations,  I  believe,  were  made  in  some  parts, 
showing  how  many  acres  each  voter  would  get  in  this  way ;  all 
these  "  humbugs"  had  their  day  and  champions,  and  perhaps 
answered  their  purpose.  But  amongst  all  the  schemes  advocated 
there,  it  was  generally  very  carefully  omitted  to  say  much  in 
defence  of  that  treaty.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  the  people  of 
Georgia  of  either  party,  desirous  as  I  know  them  in  the  main,  of 
both  parties,  to  be  for  annexation  upon  proper  terms,  would  be 
willing  to  see  it  accomplished  according  to  the  provisions  of  that 
measure. 

The  same  I  will  venture  to  affirm  of  the  people  of  the  South 
generally,  of  all  parties. 

Sir,  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  (Mr. 
HOLMES)  the  other  day  said,  what  I  consider,  in  effect,  as  de 
claring  that  the  Southern  man  who  would  vote  for  the  terms  of 
that  treaty  was  either  "  a  fool  or  a  knave." 

[Mr.  HOLMES  rose  and  said,  that  what  he  had  stated  was,  that 
any  Southern  man  who  would  consent  to  divide  the  Texan 
territory  between  the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  interests 
would  be  either  "a  fool  or  a  knave,"  and  such  was  still  his 
opinion.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued.  Exactly  so,  sir ;  and  so  I  under 
stood  him.  And  how  did  that  treaty,  or  how  does  the  plan  now 
upon  your  table,  dispose  of  and  adjust  those  interests  ?  Where 
is  the  guarantee  it  contains  for  the  security  of  any  portion,  much 
less  one-half  of  the  country  or  territory,  for  the  slaveholding 
interests  ?  Upon  this  subject,  which  that  gentleman  thinks  so 
vital  and  important,  that  treaty  and  the  plan  now  before  us  are 
as  silent  as  the  grave !  And  would  the  Southern  man  who  should 
vote  to  have  the  country  equally  divided  between  the  slave- 
holding  and  non-slaveholding  interests  be  any  more  "  a  fool  or  a 
knave"  than  the  man  who  would  vote  for  the  acquisition  of  that 


SPEECH   ON  THE  ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  283 

extensive  territory,  larger  than  several  of  the  largest  States  of 
this  Union  together,  or  the  Kingdom  of  France,  as  some  gentle 
men  have  said,  bordering  upon  three  of  the  slave  States  of  the 
Union,  without  any  settlement  of  that  question,  or  adjustment 
of  these  interests  ?  Leaving  it  for  a  future  House  of  Representa 
tives,  where  the  majority  it  is  known  will  be  decidedly  opposed  to 
the  slaveholding  interests,  to  make  the  division  ?  I  should  not 
call  any  man  who  may  or  might  so  vote  either  "a  knave  or  a 
fool."  I  use  no  such  language  toward  any  member  on  this  floor. 
I  suppose  every  one  will  vote  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
judgment,  and  what  he  conceives  to  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  country.  This  is  the  rule  I  claim  for  myself,  and  I  am 
disposed  to  concede  it  to  others.  But  this  I  will  not  hesitate  to 
say  :  that  no  Southern  man  could  pursue,  in  my  opinion,  a  more 
unwise  course  than  to  vote  for  any  measure  upon  this  subject 
without  a  settlement  and  establishment  of  the  line  dividing  those 
interests.  If  slaveiy  is  to  exist  in  any  part  of  the  territory,  let 
it  be  so  stated.  Let  it  be  "  so  nominated  in  the  bond."  Let  it 
be  inserted  in  the  compact  of  union,  of  whatever  character  it  may 
be,  whether  in  the  form  of  a  treaty,  or  a  bill  or  joint  resolution 
for  her  admission  as  a  State,  or  in  any  other  way.  Nor  can  I 
say  upon  this  point,  with  the  honorable  chairman  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  (Mr.  C.  J.  INGERSOLL,)  who  reported 
this  plan,  which  is  so  mum  upon  this  most  important  matter 
connected  with  it,  that  it  is  unneccessary  to  adjust  that  question 
now ;  that  "  sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof."  The 
authority  of  scripture,  I  admit,  is  good,  when  properly  used  ;  but, 
unfortunately,  it  is  not  alwa}7^  so  applied.  And  whoever  has 
read  the  history  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  will  doubt 
less  agree  with  me,  that  this  is  not  the  first  instance  of  its 
misapplication.  I  should  rather  say,  let  us  not  put  off  the  evil 
hour — let  the  members  from  different  parts  of  the  country  under 
stand  themselves  upon  this  question  at  the  threshold.  Distinct 
understandings  often  avoid  unpleasant  differences  and  difficulties, 
as  well  between  States  as  individuals.  If  Texas  is  to  be  brought 
into  the  Union,  upon  what  terms  is  it  to  be  done  ?  Is  it  to  be  a 
free  or  a  slave  territory,  or  is  it  to  be  subject  to  the  operation  of 
the  Missouri  compromise  within  similar  limits  ?  The  honorable 
chairman  to  whom  I  have  just  alluded,  in  a  paper  put  forth  by 
him  last  summer,  said,  in  his  classic  language,  that  annexation 
would  be  the  euthanasia  of  slavery,  the  easy  death  of  that 
institution  ! 

Is  that  the  object,  then,  of  those  who  advocate  his  plan  ?  Do 
they  intend,  after  carrying  the  measure  for  annexation,  without 
any  thing  being  said  upon  slavery,  to  oppose  the  admission  of 
any  slave  State  into  the  Union,  formed  out  of  that  territory  ?  Is 
this  the  object  and  design  ?  If  so,  why  not  avow  it  ?  And,  if  not, 
why  not  say  at  once  what  part  shall  be  admitted  as  States  with 
slavery,  if  the  people  so  choose  ?  Why  leave  it  an  open  question  ? 


281  SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

My  reason  for  wishing  it  settled  in  the  beginning,  and  for  oppo 
sing  any  and  all  measures  and  plans  which  leave  it  unsettled,  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  make  known.  I  fear  the  excitement  growing 
out  of  the  agitation  of  the  question  hereafter  may  endanger  the 
harmony  and  even  existence  of  our  present  Union.  Suppose  this 
measure  should  pass — I  mean  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs — and  Texas  shortly  hereafter  should 
apply  for  admission  as  a  State  into  the  Union,  and  the  restric 
tions  proposed  for  Missouri  should  be  imposed  upon  her — can 
any  one  be  so  blind  as  not  to  know  what  would  be  the  result,  or 
so  infatuated  as  not  to  regard  the  consequences  ?  If  so,  I  confess 
it  is  not  the  case  with  myself.  I  have  an  ardent  attachment  for 
this  Union.  Upon  its  existence  and  continuance,  our  prosperity, 
happiness,  and  safety,  depend.  And  patriotism — true  patriotism 
— which,  as  I  understand  that  term,  means  love  of  one's  own 
country  above  all  others — compels  me  to  declare  that,  as  much 
as  I  feel  for  the  interests  and  welfare  of  the  people  of  Texas,  I 
feel  much  more  for  the  interests  and  welfare  of  the  people  of  this 
country;  and  as  much  as  I  admire  the  lustre  of  the  "  lone  star," 
as  some  gentlemen  have  been  pleased  to  designate  our  neighbor 
ing  Republic,  I  feel  much  greater  admiration  for  the  bright 
galaxy  of  the  twenty-six  brilliant  stars  of  our  own  glorious 
constellation ;  and  rather  than  see  her  shooting  irregularly  from 
her  place,  producing  disorder  and  confusion  in  our  well-balanced 
system,  I  should  greatly  prefer  to  let  her  "  beam  on"  with  increas 
ing  splendor,  as  a  fixed  star  in  the  political  firmament.  Though 
she  might  never  reach  the  first  magnitude,  yet  her  Hosition  would 
ever  render  her  conspicuous  amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

But  if  gentlemen  from  the  North  are  sincere  in  their  profes 
sion — if  they  consider  the  annexation  of  Texas  a  great  national 
question — if  our  own  greatness  and  glory  are  to  be  increased 
thereby,  and  our  own  union  and  harmony  are  not  to  be  disturbed 
— if  they  are  disposed  to  abide  by  the  compromise  established  at 
the  admission  of  Missouri,  by  which  alone  that  harmony  can  be 
preserved,  let  them  say  so  now,  and  leave  no  door  open  for 
future  disputation,  dissension,  and  strife.  I  speak  plainly,  and 
wish  to  be  understood.  I  want  to  see  no  Grecian  arts  practised 
upon  the  South,  or  upon  this  country ;  and  I  want  to  see  no 
huge  "wooden  horse"  brought  within  the  walls  of  this  Con 
federacy,  under  the  feigned  auspices  of  any  false  divinity. 

And  now  I  must  ask  to  be  indulged  in  saying  something  upon 
the  official  correspondence  connected  with  this  subject,  which, 
though  it  does  not  relate  directly  to  the  merits  of  the  question, 
yet,  nevertheless,  is  closely  connected  therewith.  Against  that 
correspondence,  its  spirit,  its  principles  and  doctrines,  I  protest. 
It  has  placed  the  annexation  of  Texas  upon  the  ground  of  its 
being  necessary  to  strengthen  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
States  ;  and  for  this  object,  and  with  this  view,  this  government 
is  called  upon  to  act  and  legislate  in  the  case. 


SPEECH   ON  THE  ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  285 

My  objection  is,  that  the  general  government  has  no  power  to 
legislate  for  any  such  purpose.  If  I  understand  the  nature  of 
this  government,  and  the  ground  always  heretofore  occupied  by 
the  South  upon  this  subject,  it  is,  that  slavery  is  peculiarly  a 
domestic  institution.  It  is  a  matter  that  concerns  the  States  in 
which  it  exists,  severally,  separately,  and  exclusively ;  and  with 
which  this  government  has  no  right  to  interfere  or  to  legislate, 
further  than  to  secure  the  enforcement  of  rights  under  existing 
guaranties  of  the  constitution,  and  to  suppress  insubordinations 
and  insurrections,  if  they  arise.  Beyond  this,  there  is  no  power 
in  the  general  government  to  act  upon  the  subject,  with  a  view 
either  to  strengthen  or  weaken  the  institution.  For,  if  the  power  to 
do  one  be  conceded,  how  can  that  to  do  the  other  be  denied  ?  I  do 
not  profess  to  belong  to  that  school  of  politicians  who  claim  one 
construction  of  the  constitution  one  day,  when  it  favors  my 
interests,  and  oppose  the  same,  or  a  similar  one,  the  next  day, 
when  it  happens  to  be  against  me.  Truth  is  fixed,  inflexible,  im 
mutable,  and  eternal ;  unbending  to  time,  circumstances,  and 
interests  ;  and  so  should  be  the  rules  and  principles  by  which  the 
constitution  is  construed  and  interpreted.  And  what  has  been 
the  position  of  the  South  for  years  upon  this  subject?  What  has 
been  the  course  of  her  members  upon  this  floor,  in  relation  to  the 
reception  of  abolition  petitions  ?  Has  it  not  been,  that  slavery  is 
a  question  upon  which  Congress  cannot  act,  except  in  the  cases 
I  have  stated,  where  it  is  expressly  provided  by  the  constitution  ; 
that  Congress  has  no  jurisdiction,  if  you  please,  over  the  subject, 
and  that  therefore  it  is  improper  and  useless,  if  not  unconstitu 
tional,  to  receive  petitions  asking  what  Congress  cannot  con 
stitutionally  grant  ?  This  has  been  the  ground  assumed  by  the 
South,  and  upon  which  these  petitions  have  been  rejected  for 
years  by  this  House,  until  the  rule  was  rescinded  at  the  begin 
ning  of  this  session.  And  however  much  gentlemen  from 
different  parts  of  the  Union  have  differed  in  opinion  upon  the 
extent  of  the  abstract  right  of  petition,  and  the  propriety  and 
expediency  of  receiving  all  kinds  of  petitions,  whether  for  con 
stitutional  objects  or  not,  yet  I  believe  they  have  always  been 
nearly  all  agreed  in  this,  that  Congress  has  no  right  or  power  to 
interfere  with  the  institutions  of  the  States.  This,  sir,  is  our 
safeguard,  and  in  it  is  our  only  security ;  it  is  the  outpost  and 
bulwark  of  our  defence.  Yield  this,  and  you  yield  every  thing. 
Grant  the  power  to  act  or  move  upon  the  subject,  yield  the  juris 
diction,  call  upon  Congress  to  legislate  with  the  view  presented 
in  that  correspondence,  and  instead  of  strengthening,  they  might 
deem  it  proper  to  weaken  those  institutions ;  and  where,  then,  is 
your  remedy  ?  I  ask  Southern  gentlemen,  where,  then,  is  their 
remedy  ?  We  were  reminded  the  other  day  by  a  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  (Mr.  HOLMES,)  that  we  were  in  a  minority  on  this 
floor.  It  is  true,  we  are  in  a  minority  ;  and  is  it  wise  in  a 
minority  to  yield  their  strong  position,  their  sure  arid  safe 


286  SPEECH    ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF    TEXAS. 

fortress,  to  the  majority,  for  them  to  seize  and  occupy  to  their 
destruction  ?  No,  sir ;  never.  Upon  this  subject,  I  tell  gentlemen 
from  the  South,  and  the  people  of  the  South,  to  stand  upon  the 
constitution  as  it  is,  and  that  construction  which  has  been 
uniformly  given  to  it  upon  this  point,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
government.  This  is  our  shield,  wrought  in  the  furnace  of  the 
Revolution.  It  is  broad,  ample,  firm,  and  strong ;  and  we  want 
no  further  protection  or  security  than  it  provides.  But  this  is 
not  all.  That  correspondence  not  only  makes  slavery  a  national 
question,  and  calls  upon  Congress  to  treat  it  as  such,  and  legis 
late  in  reference  to  it  as  such,  but  it  has  even  thrust  the  whole 
subject  into  our  foreign  diplomacy ;  and  those  State  institutions 
which  heretofore  were  never  held  to  be  proper  topics  for  discus 
sion  and  agitation,  even  upon  this  floor,  are  now  deemed  proper 
subjects  of  legitimate  correspondence  between  this  government, 
in  its  national  character,  and  the  most  influential  and  powerful 
Courts  of  Europe.  Where  it  will  end,  I  know  not.  But  the 
whole  proceeding  I  consider  as  untimely,  uncalled  for,  and 
exceedingly  improper ;  and  against  it,  as  a  Southern  man,  a 
Georgian,  and  as  an  American,  I  protest. 

Upon  the  institution  of  slavery,  sir,  I  do  not  intend  to  speak 
here,  either  of  its  origin,  history,  present  condition,  and  necessity, 
or  of  its  evils  and  abuses.  It  is  not  the  proper  place.  I  have 
been  led  to  say  what  I  have,  in  stating  my  first  objection  to  the 
proposed  plan  for  the  annexation  of  Texas ;  which  is,  that  it 
leaves  this  an  open  question,  for  mischievous  and  dangerous 
discussion  hereafter. 

The  other  objection  to  that  plan  is,  that  it  provides  for  the 
assumption  of  the  debt  of  Texas — at  least,  to  the  extent  of  ten 
millions  of  dollars.  Nor  do  I  consider  this  matter  of  debt  "  all 
smoke,"  as  another  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  RHETT) 
said  the  other  day  ;  or,  at  least,  where  -there  is  so  much  smoke,  I 
fear  there  is  "  some  fire" — quite  enough  to  "blister  our  fingers," 
if  we  handle  it  much.  There  are  other  obligations,  at  any  rate, 
which  I  think  we  would  be  doing  much  better  to  be  looking  after 
first.  We  ought  to  be  just  before  we  undertake  to  be  generous. 
Georgia  has  not  yet  been  reimbursed  for  expenditures  made  in 
behalf  of  the  common  defence  during  the  late  Indian  difficulties  ; 
and  the  faithful  soldier,  in  many  instances,  has  not  yet  been 
successful  in  getting  his  honest  dues  for  services  and  loss  of 
property  in  those  campaigns.  We  ought  certainly  to  pay  our 
own  debts  first ;  and  after  that,  we  have  other  debts,  still  much 
nearer  home,  if  we  are  disposed  to  be  liberal  with  the  public 
money.  Several  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  unfortunately,  are 
largely  in  debt.  And  I  have  not  been  a  little  surprised  at  the 
course  of  certain  gentlemen  upon  this  question,  who  were  not 
long  since  exceedingly  clamorous  against  the  monstrous  and 
unconstitutional  assumption  of  the  debts  of  the  States,  which  was 
without  foundation,  and  altogether  gratuitously,  charged  upon 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  287 

their  opponents,  but  who  now  see  no  objection  at  all,  no  con 
stitutional  impediment,  to  the  assumption  of  the  debts  of  a 
foreign  country.  It  is  destruction  to  the  constitution,  according 
to  their  logic,'  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  States ;  but  there  is  no 
obstacle,  nothing  more  formidable  than  "  smoke,"  which  soon 
disappears  and  vanishes,  in  the  way  of  paying  the  debt  of  Texas. 
There  is  one  part  of  Scripture  I  would  commend  to  the  atten 
tion  of  such  gentlemen ;  and  it  is  that  which  describes  the 
inconsistency  of  a  class  of  people  of  old,  who  "  strained  at  gnats, 
and  swallowed  camels." 

-  But  who  knows  the  amount  of  our  liability  to  be  incurred  by 
the  assumption  of  that  debt  ?  It  is  true  the  committee  only  pro 
pose  to  pay  ten  millions  ;  but  who  does  not  know,  that  if  we  take 
Texas,  with  her  sovereignty,  lands,  and  all  her  property,  as  that 
plan  proposes,  we  will  become  liable  for  her  whole  debt,  let  the 
amount  be  as  large  as  it  may  ?  And  are  gentlemen  prepared 
thus  to  incur  an  unknown  liability  ? 

[Here  Mr.  C.  J.  INGERSOLL,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  interrupted  to  explain,  and  stated  that  the 
ministers  of  Texas  had  estimated  the  debt  at  between  seven  and 
eight  millions  ;  but  the  committee  had  put  the  amount  at  ten  mil 
lions,  so  as  to  cover  every  thing.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued.  Yes,  sir,  I  know  all  that  ;  but  will 
the  honorable  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs 
undertake  to  say  to  the  House  that  ten  millions  will  cover  the 
present  debt  of  Texas  ? 

[Mr.  INGERSOLL  replied,  that  he  made  the  statement  on  the 
authority  of  the  Texan  ministers.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  proceeded.  Yes,  sir ;  but  up  to  what  time  did 
that  estimate  refer?  As  far  back  as  1841;  three — four  years 
ago.  It  may  have  been  going  on  and  increasing  ever  since.  I 
want  to  know  what  it  is  at  this  time.  If  I  have  been  correctly 
informed,  the  authorities  of  Texas  have  not  even  kept  an  account 
of  their  debt  since  1841,  and  do  not  themselves  know  its  extent. 
If  they  did,  why  did  not  their  ministers  tell  what  it  was  in  1844  ? 
Either  because  they  did  not  know,  or  because  the  amount  was 
too  frightful  to  disclose.  Many  men  of  fortune  owed  but  little  in 
1841,  who  have  long  since  been  bankrupt.  And  people  in  debt 
are  generally  in  the  habit  of  estimating  their  liabilities  far  short 
of  their  real  amount.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  that  we  have  no 
authentic  information  upon  the  extent  of  that  debt  at  this  time ; 
and  the  absence  of  information  is  ominous  of  itself.  I  have  heard 
it  estimated  by  some  at  twenty  millions,  others  forty,  and  some  as 
high  as  sixty/  For  my  part,  I  should  about  as  soon  attempt  to 
count  the  stars  in  the  heavens,  or  estimate  the  "  number  of  the 
dead,"  as  to  come  to  any  accurate  and  satisfactory  opinion  upon 
the  real  amount  of  that  debt,  or  the  extent  of  the  liability  which 
this  government  would  incur  by  a  reckless  assumption  of  it, 


288  SPEECH   ON   THE    ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

wholly  in  the  dark,  and  without  information.  This  leap  I  am 
not  prepared  to  make. 

For  these  reasons,  I  cannot  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs ;  and  as  my  time  is  passing  so 
rapidly  that  I  shall  not  be  able  to  notice  the  various  other  plans, 
the  one  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  DOUGLASS,) 
and  the  one  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  (Mr.  WELLER,)  and  the 
one  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  TIBBATTS,)  and  the 
one  by  the  gentleman  from  Alabama,  (Mr.  BELSER,)  and  the  one 
by  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr.  ROBINSON,)  and  various 
others — sixteen  in  all,  I  believe — I  will  briefly  say,  that  each  and 
every  one  of  them  is  liable  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  objections  I 
have  stated,  or  other  considerations  growing  out  of  the  subjects 
to  which  I  have  alluded.  I  cannot,  therefore,  notice  them 
singly  and  separately.  All  of  them  fall  within  the  scope  of  my 
objections. 

And  I  pass  on  to  what  I  proposed  to  do  in  the  second  place ; 
which  was,  to  state  what  kind  of  a  proposition  for  annexation  I 
would  support,  and  upon  what  terms  and  principles  I  would 
consent  to  a  union  of  Texas  with  this  countiy  These,  sir,  are 
embodied  and  set  forth  in  the  plan  submitted  by  the  gentleman 
from  Tennesse  (Mr.  MILTON  BROWN);  and  as  that  plan  has  been 
printed  and  laid  before  members,  and  gentlemen  can  read  its 
terms  at  their  leisure,  if  they  are  not  already  familiar  with  them, 
I  will  not  detain  the  committee  by  a  recapitulation.  It  proposes 
to  admit  Texas  as  a  State  at  once,  and  leaves  her  debts  and  her 
lands  for  her  own  management,  just  as  Georgia  and  other  States, 
with  their  debts  and  rich  domain,  came  into  the  Union  at  the 
formation  of  the  government.  Not  only  this,  it  settles  the 
slavery  question.  It  leaves  no  door  open  for  future  mischief, 
discord,  and  strife,  from  that  quarter.  It  leaves  no  prospect  for 
another  Missouri  agitation,  which  once  came  well  nigh  destroy 
ing  the  government ;  but  it  quiets  and  puts  to  rest  forever  all 
disturbance  on  that  question,  and  that,  too,  upon  the  terms  of 
the  compromise  agreed  upon  on  the  admission  of  Missouri. 
With  that  the  country  is  familiar,  and  the  people  in  all  parts 
seem  to  be  satisfied. 

And,  with  this  exposition,  I  shall  say  nothing  further  upon 
that  point,  but  will  proceed  to  notice  some  of  the  objections 
urged  against  the  proposed  action,  which  apply  to  this  plan  as 
well  as  others.  These  objections  are  of  two  classes :  first,  those 
which  look  to  the  foreign,  and,  secondly,  those  which  relate  to 
the  domestic  aspect  of  the  question.  I.  shall  speak  of  each  in 
their  order. 

First,  of  the  foreign.  And  upon  this  view  I  wish  to  be  under 
stood  as"  pay  ing  no  regard  to  the  various  treaties  which  gentle 
men  have  said  so  much  about.  I  have  nothing  to  say  of  the 
treaty  of  1803  with  France,  by  which  Louisiana  was  acquired,  or 
whether  we  did,  by  that  treaty,  actually  get  a  good  title  to  any 


SPEECH    ON   THE    ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  289 

portion  of  the  country  west  of  the  Sabine  or  not.  Nor  shall  I 
say  any  thing  of  the  treaty  of  1819  with  Spain,  by  which  we  got 
the  Floridas,  and  agreed  upon  the  Sabine  as  the  boundary 
between  us  and  the  neighboring  Spanish  provinces  in  that  quar 
ter;  or  the  treaty  (of  1832)  of  amity  with  Mexico,  after  the 
establishment  of -her  independence.  All  these,  I  consider,  have 
very  little  to  do  with  the  real  merits  of  the  question.  If  we  did 
get  a  good  title  to  Texas  by  the  treaty  of  1803,  we  certainly 
parted  with  it,  by  solemn  engagement,  by  the  the  treaty  of  1819. 
Nor  am  I  disposed  to  find  fault  with  the  treaty  of  1819. 
By  it  we  got,  in  consideration  of  five  million  of  dollars,  and  the 
relinquishment  of  a  disputed  claim  for  all  west  of  the  Sabine,  a 
settlement  for  all  east,  and  the  Floridas  besides  ;  which  was  a  great 
acquisition  at  that  day.  It  was  so  considered  by  Mr.  Monroe, 
Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr.  Wirt,  and  our  own  distinguished  and  highly 
gifted  Crawford — all  Southern  men,  statesmen  and  patriots. 
These  all  gave  it  their  approval  and  sanction  at  the  time;  and  I 
take  it  for  granted  that  the  treaty,  under  the  circumstances,  was 
not  only  a  good  one,  but  highly  advantageous  to  the  country. 
It  was  all-important  for  us  to  have  Florida ;  and  I  do  not  see 
how  we  could  well  do  without  it.  But  even  if  that  treaty  were 
not  a  good  one,  we  could  not,  in  good  faith,  at  this  time,  go 
beyond  it.  We  would  be  estopped,  by  our  own  deed  and  compact. 
That,  therefore,  I  think,  is  out  of  the  question.  Nor  do  I  con 
ceive  that  the  treaty  of  1832,  between  this  country  and  Mexico, 
has  much  more  to  do  with  the  case.  Has  Texas  acquired  her 
independence,  and  is  she  entitled  to  be  considered  as  one  of  the 
nations  of  the  earth  ?  This  is  the  only  point,  upon  this  view  of 
the  subject,  entitled  to  consideration.  And  I  confess  this  aspect 
of  the  case,  in  my  opinion,  has  materially  changed  since  this 
question  was  first  started.  Then  it  is  true,  after  protracted  and 
ineffectual  efforts  on  the  part  of  Mexico  to  re-establish  her 
authority,  there  was  no  actual  war  going  on  in  Texas ;  no  fla 
grant  bellum  raging  at  the  time.  But  the  armistice  which  had 
for  some  time  been  agreed  upon,  and  by  which  hostilities  had 
been  suspended,  had  just  terminated,  and  a  proclamation  had 
been  made  by  Mexico  for  a  renewal  of  hostilities.  There  was 
every  reason  to  expect  that  another  effort  would  be  made ;  and 
how  far,  under  such  circumstances,  it  was  just  and  proper  for 
this  country  to  make  herself  a  party  to  such  war,  as  she  would 
have  done  by  taking  Texas  to  herself,  and  how  far  our  national 
honor  and  national  good  faith  might  have  been  involved  in  such 
course,  was  a  grave  and  important  question,  and  well  deserving 
the  calm  and  serious  consideration  of  our  government.  A  nation's 
honor  and  good  faith  are  of  great  value — above  all  price — and 
should  not  be  rashly  sacrificed ;  they  should  be  guarded,  watched, 
and  defended,  with  prudence,  wisdom,  firmness,  and  patriotism ; 
and  if  error  ever  should  be  committed  in  regard  to  these,  it  seems 
to  be  the  safer  course  to  let  the  error  be  in  a  leaning  to  the  side 
19 


290  SPEECH   ON   THE    ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

of  honor  and  good  faith.  But,  apart  from  this,  it  was  a  grave 
question,  how  far  it  was  discreet  and  proper  for  this  country  to 
involve  herself  in  a  war,  even  if,  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  world,  it 
should  have  been  viewed  right  and  justifiable,  when  not  in  defence 
of  her  own  citizens.  War  at  all  times  is  a  great  evil ;  it  is  the 
ultima  ratio  regum — the  last  resort  of  nations  for  the  redress  of 
grievances,  when  argument  and  reason  have  failed  ;  and  while  it 
should  never  be  shunned  or  avoided  when  the  case  arises,  it 
should  never  be  courted  in  anticipation.  All  these  views  were 
presented  by  the  circumstances  when  this  agitation  commenced ; 
but  since  then  we  have  seen  that  Mexico  has  failed  to  act  in 
accordance  with  her  proclamation ;  she  has  failed  to  renew  the 
war.  Her  Congress,  it  is  reported,  has  failed  and  refused  to  vote 
the  necessary  supplies — justifying  the  inference  that  she  has 
abandoned  the  intention  of  making  an}^  further  attempt  to  re 
establish  her  power  and  authority  in  Texas,  and  leaving  the 
present  government  in  the  possession  of  the  undisputed  sove 
reignty  of  that  country,  and  fulty  authorized  to  be  treated  as 
other  independent  and  sovereign  powers.  Nay,  more:  we  see 
Mexico  herself  now  convulsed  with  internal  revolutions ;  intes 
tine  war  now  rages  throughout  her  limits ;  and  she  seems  no 
longer  able  to  maintain  her  own  institutions.  The  government 
in  existence  there  so  late  as  last  year  has  recently  been  over 
thrown.  Divided  and  torn  to  pieces  by  feuds  and  factions,  she 
appears  to-day  much  less  stable,  if  not  less  capable  of  maintain 
ing  her  independence,  than  Texas.  Anarchy  reigns  throughout 
her  borders,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  if  she  has  any  gov 
ernment  at  this  time,  either  de  facto  or  de  jure.  Her  claims, 
therefore,  I  am  not  disposed  any  longer  to  regard.  She  is  clearly 
7wrs  de  combat,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned;  for  if 
Mexico  has  abandoned  the  war,  or  forfeited  her  right  by  unrea 
sonable  delay,  or  has  proved  unable  to  carry  it  on,  Texas  has 
certainly  established  her  independence,  and  is  entitled  to  be  con 
sidered  and  acted  toward  as  other  independent  nations.  And 
if  this  be  so,  of  course  our  so  considering  and  treating  her  can 
not  interfere  at  all  with  the  obligations  of  our  treaty  of  boundary 
and  amity  with  Mexico.  The  only  inquiry,  therefore,  upon  the 
foregoing  aspect  of  the  question,  is,  whether  Texas  is  now  entitled 
to  be  considered  one  of  the  independent  nations  of  the  earth  ? 
And,  for  my  own  part,  I  see  no  reason  why  she  should  not  be.  As 
for  England  or  France,  or  other  countries,  and  their  feelings  and 
wishes,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  They  have  nothing  more  to  do 
witti  the  question  than  any  other  common  intermeddlers  in  com 
munities  have  to  do  with  their  neighbor's  negotiations.  It  is  no 
business  of  theirs.  They  have  no  right  to  say  any  thing ;  and  if 
they  do,  they  thereby  become  national  intermeddlers,  and  should 
be  treated  accordingly. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  objections,  comprising  those  that 
grow  out  of  the  nature  of  our  own  government ;  they  are  of  a 


SPEECH   ON   THE  ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  291 

domestic  character,  and  concern  ourselves.  These  are  of  a  con 
stitutional  origin,  and  deserve  mature  deliberation.  It  is  said 
that  the  proceedings  now  before  us  are  unauthorized  by  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  Union,  and  that  we  have  no  power  to  act 
upon  the  subject  as  proposed.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
(M#.  BARNARD)  directed  his  whole  speech  yesterday  to  this  point, 
and  presented  an  argument  which  was  highly  complimented  by 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  ADAMS)  for  its  force  and 
ability.  That  gentleman  (Mr.  B.)  said  that  the  House  was  pro 
ceeding  "  in  contempt  of  the  constitution,"  and  that  the  proposed 
object  was  a  "  fraud "  upon  the  constitution.  These  strong 
expressions  were  repeated,  and  fell  with  emphasis  from  the  gen 
tleman  ;  and  I  listened  attentively  to  his  argument,  to  hear  what 
reasons  he  would  offer  to  sustain  his  assertion ;  for  I  held  n^self 
open  to  conviction.  And  if  I  could  see  that  the  course  I  intend 
to  take  was  in  contempt  of  the  constitution,  or  that  I  was  about 
to  commit  a  fraud — a  "  gross  fraud  "  were  his  words — upon  its 
provisions,  I  should  most  certainly  abandon  the  project. 

When  I  cast  my  eyes,  Mr.  Chairman,  over  the  surface  of  the 
world,  and  survey  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  see  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  alone,  of  all  the  millions  of  the  human 
family  who  live  upon  the  habitable  globe,  are  really  free,  and 
fully  enjoy  the  natural  rights  of  man  ;  that  all  other  parts  are 
dreary,  wild,  and  waste ;  and  that  this  is  the  only  green  spot, 
the  only  oasis  in  the  universal  desert — and  then  consider  that  all 
this  difference  is  owing  to  our  constitution ;  that  all  our  rights, 
and  privileges,  and  interests,  are  derived  from  and  secured  by  it, 
I  am  disposed  to  regard  it  with  no  trifling  feelings  of  unconcern 
and  indifference.  It  is,  indeed,  the  richest  inheritance  ever  be 
queathed  by  patriot  sires  to  ungrateful  sons.  I  confess,  I  view 
it  with  reverence  ;  and,  if  idolatry  could  ever  be  excused,  it  seems 
to  me  it  would  be  in  allowing  an  American  citizen  a  holy  devotion 
to  the  constitution  of  his  country.  Such  are  my  feelings ;  and 
far  be  it  from  me  to  entertain  sentiments  in  any  way  kindred  to 
a  disregard  for  its  principles,  much  less  in  contempt  for  its 
almost  sacred  provisions. 

But  how  is  it  ?  Let  us  examine  the  matter.  The  gentleman 
objects  to  the  acquisition  of  territory,  as  he  calls  it,  by  joint  action 
of  Congress,  or  by  any  action  of  Congress  in  its  legislative  capacity. 

His  arguments  rested  upon  the  assumption,  that  Congress,  in 
its  legislative  character,  could  not  exercise  any  power  which  was 
not  expressly  granted,  or  such  as  might  be  necessary  to  carry  out 
those  which  were  expressly  granted ;  and  that  there  was  no 
original  substantive  power  granted  in  the  constitution  for  the 
acquisition  of  territory.  This  was  not  one  of  the  original  de 
signs  in  the  formation  of  the  government,  and  was  not  one  of 
the  objects  to  be  attained,  as  specified  in  the  constitution.  He 
admitted  that  territory  might  be  acquired,  if  it  became  a  neces 
sary  incident  to  the  proper  exercise  of  other  powers,  such  as  the 


292  SPEECH    ON   THE    ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS. 

treaty-making  power,  etc.,  but  denied  that  the  present  proceed 
ings  proposed  to  exercise  it  in  that  way,  and  therefore  was 
unconstitutional. 

Now,  suppose  I  grant  his  position  and  his  premises  entirely, 
does  his  conclusion,  in  reference  to  the  proposition  I  advocate, 
necessarily  follow  ?  Do  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman  f£om 
Tennessee  (Mr.  BROWN)  propose  to  acquire  territory  ?  We  are 
often  misled  by  the  use  of  words.  Words,  some  writer  has  said, 
are  things ;  and  much  misapprehension,  I  think,  has  been  pro 
duced  by  the  terms  used  in  this  debate.  We  have  had  "  annexa 
tion,"  and  "  re-annexation,"  and  "  acquisition  of  territory,"  until 
there  is  a  confusion  of  ideas  between  the  object  desired  and  the 
manner  of  obtaining  it.  To  acquire,  conveys  the  idea  of  prop 
erty,  possession,  and  the  right  of  disposition.  And  to  acquire 
territory,  conveys  the  idea  of  getting  the  rightful  possession  of 
vacant  and  unoccupied  lands.  If  this  be  the  sense  in  which  the 
gentleman  uses  it,  I  ask,  does  the  plan  of  the  gentleman  from 
Tennessee  propose  to  do  any  such  thing  ?  It  is  true,  it  proposes 
to  enlarge  and  extend  the  limits  and  boundaries  of  our  Republic. 
But  how?  By  permitting  another  State  to  come  into  the 
Union,  with  all  her  lands  and  her  territory  belonging  to  herself. 
This  government  will  acquire  nothing  thereby,  except  the  advan 
tages  to  be  deprived  from  the  union.  And,  if  I  understand  the 
original  substantial  design  of  the  constitution,  the  main  object 
of  its  creation,  it  was  not  to  acquire  territory,  it  is  true,  but  to 
form  a  Union  of  States,  a  species  of  confederacy ;  conferring 
upon  the  joint  government  of  the  confederation,  or  union,  the 
exercise  of  such  sovereign  powers  as  were  necessary  for  all 
foreign  national  purposes,  and  retaining  all  others  in  th$  States, 
or  the  people  of  the  States,  respectively.  This  was  the  design, 
this  was  the  object  of  the  constitution  itself,  which  is  but  the 
enumeration  of  the  terms  upon  which  the  people  of  the  several 
States  agreed  to  join  in  the  union,  for  the  purposes  therein  speci 
fied  ;  and  in  this  wajr  all  the  States  came  into  it,  Georgia 
amongst  the  rest,  with  her  rich  western  domain  extending  to  the 
Mississippi,  out  of  which  two  States  have  since  grown  up,  and 
have  been  likewise  admitted.  When  the  government  was  first 
formed,  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  refused  to  come  in  for 
some  time.  It  was  not  until  after  it  was  organized,  and  com 
menced  operations  by  eleven  of  the  States,  that  these  two  con 
sented  to  become  members  of  the  Union.  Could  the  United 
States,  those  eleven  which  first  started  this  general  government, 
be  said  to  have  acquired  territory  when  North  Carolina  was 
admitted  ?  or  the  twelve,  which  composed  the  United  States 
when  Rhode  Island  came  in  ?  There  was  in  each  of  those  cases 
an  addition  of  a  State,  and  enlargement  of  the  confederated  Re 
public,  just  as  there  will  be  if  Texas  be  admitted,  as  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  but  no  acquisition  of  territory,  in 
the  common  acceptation  of  that  term. 


SPEECH   ON  THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  293 

How  far,  and  in  how  many  ways,  this  government  can  consti 
tutionally  acquire  territory  "literally,  as  I  have  explained,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  do  not  think  a  pertinent  inquiry  at  this  time ;  but  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  I  think  it  can  be  done  in  vari 
ous  ways,  and  without  resorting  to  the  exercise  of  incidental 
powers.  And  upon  this  point  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  was  strangely  inconsistent  with  itself;  for  he 
admitted  that  we  could  constitutionally  acquire  and  hold  terri 
tory  by  the  right  of  discovery ;  and  yet,  where  does  he  find  this 
power  amongst  those  specified  and  expressly  granted  in  the  con 
stitution  ?  I  might  ask,  as  did  the  gentleman  from  Massachsetts, 
(Mr.  WINTHROP,)  if  it  was  one  of  the  original  designs  and 
objects  in  forming  our  government  "  to  go  in  quest  of  foreign 
lands  ?"  There  is  no  such  object  stated,  and  no  such  power 
expressly  given.  And  in  the  case  the  gentleman  admitted,  it 
strikes  me  that  it  would  be  hard  to  point  out  the  one  to  which  it 
is  even  incident. 

But  sir,  I  do  not  grant  the  position  assumed  by  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  (Mr.  BARNARD).  I  have  only  been  showing, 
that,  if  I  were  to  grant  it,  it  would  not  effect  my  case.  And  I 
now  state,  that  I  believe  nothing  is  clearer  than  that  this  govern 
ment  can  in  various  ways  acquire  territory,  and  that  this  can  be 
effected  if  desired  by  Congress  in  its  legislative  capacity,  and 
under  one  of  the  express  provisions  of  the  constitution.  This  I 
do  not  adduce  in  support  of  the  proceedings  I  advocate,  or  to 
show  that  they  are  constitutional,  but  barely  to  expose  the 
fallacy  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York. 

I  read  in  the  second  clause,  latter  part,  of  the  tenth  section 
of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution,  the  following  words  : 

"No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty 
on  tonnage  ;  keep  troops  or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace  ;  enter 
into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  State,  or  with  a 
foreign  power,"  etc. 

Now,  suppose  Congress  should,  in  its  legislative  capacity,  for 
it  could  do  so  in  no  other  way,  grant  its  consent  to  Louisiana  or 
Arkansas  to  enter  into  an  "  agreement  or  compact"  with  Texas, 
or  Mexico,  if  you  please,  for  the  cession  of  certain  territory  bor 
dering  upon  those  States,  upon  the  conditions  that  one  half  of 
the  unoccupied  lands  so  ceded  should  belong  to  the  State  making 
the  negotiation,  and  the  other  half  to  be  ceded  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  be  held  subject  to  the  laws  regulating  her  other 
public  domain ;  with  the  further  condition,  that,  so  soon  as  the 
territory  so  ceded  should  become  sufficiently  populated,  it  should 
be  admitted  as  one  of  the  States  into  this  Union :  can  an}r  gentle 
man  say  that  Congress  has  not  got  the  power  to  give  such  consent  ? 
And,  if  such  consent  should  be  given,  and  such  agreement  and 
compact  be  entered  into,  that  Congress  would  not  have,  in  that 
way,  most  clearly,  acquired  territory  in  its  legislative  capacity, 
and  that  under  an  express  provision  of  the  constitution  ? 


294  SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS. 

But,  as  I  said,  I  do  not  rely  upon  that  view ;  I  do  not  and  am 
not  advocating  that  mode  of  proceeding.  I  was  only  tracing  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  who  broadly  denied 
any  such  power  to  Congress.  I  do  not  propose,  it  will  be  recol 
lected,  to  acquire  territory,  as  I  understand  it,  at  all,  but  simply 
to  admit  a  new  State  into  the  present  union  of  States.  And  the 
authority  upon  which  I  rely  is  no  forced  construction,  but  the 
plain  simple  language  of  the  constitution,  which  declares,  in  the 
first  clause,  third  section,  fourth  article,  that — 

"  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this  Union ; 
but  no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  any  other  State,  nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  junction 
of  two  or  more  States  or  parts  of  States,  without  the  consent  of 
the  Legislatures  of  the  States  concerned,  as  well  as  of  Congress." 

The  terms  here  used  are  broad,  unqualified,  and  unrestricted. 
"New  States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this  Union." 
But  it  is  said  that  it  was  only  meant  by  these  words  to  give  the 
power  to  admit  States  formed  out  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  and  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  not  to  include  a  foreign 
State.  To  this  I  might  reply,  that  it  is  the  petitio  principii — a 
begging  of  the  question.  Whether  that  was  the  meaning  and 
intention,  is  the  main  inquiry  ;  and  from  the  words  used,  no 
such  inference  can  be  drawn.  But  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  says  he  believes  that  was  the  meaning  and  intention ; 
and,  further,  that  he  believes,  if  any  other  opinion  had  been 
entertained,  the  constitution  would  never  have  been  ratified. 
Well,  sir,  his  belief  is  not  argument.  I  suppose  that  every  true  * 
Mahometan  verily  believes  that  Christ  was  an  impostor.  And  I 
will  do  the  gentleman  from  New  York  the  justice  to  admit  that 
his  faith  is  quite  as  strong ;  but  we  are  taught  that  we  should 
not  only  believe,  but  be  able  to  give  a  "  reason  for  the  faith  that 
is  in  us."  And  here,  again,  I  listened  for  the  reasons  of  the 
gentleman's  faith,  but  heard  nothing  better  than  a  repetition  of 
his  belief. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  matter.  If  there  is  any  difficulty, 
we  must  look  to  the  words,  the  objects,  and  contemporaneous 
history.  As  to  the  words,  they  are  quite  unambiguous.  The 
term  "  State"  is  a  technical  word,  well  understood  at  that  time.  It 
means  a  body  politic — a  community  clothed  with  all  the  powers 
and  attributes  of  government.  And  any  State,  even  one  of 
those  growing  up  in  the  bosom  of  our  own  territory,  upon  admis 
sion,  may  be  considered  to  some  extent  foreign.  For  if  it  be  a 
State,  it  must  have  a  separate  government ;  it  must  be  a  political 
community  of  itself;  it  must  have  a  government  Separate  from, 
and  to  some  extent  independent  of  the  Union.  For  if  it  be  in 
the  Union,  then  it  could  not  be  admitted;  that  cannot  be 
admitted  in  which  is  already  in.  And  if  it  is  a  State,  and  out  of 
the  Union,  seeking  admission,  it  must  be  considered  quo  ad  hoc 
to  be  foreign.  Now,  as  to  contemporaneous  and  subsequent 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  295 

history.  What  relation  did  North  Carolina  hold  to  the  Union 
when  it  was  first  formed  ?  She  refused  to  ratify  the  constitution, 
and  was  most  clearly  out  of  it.  The  last  article  of  the  constitu 
tion  declared— 

"  The  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be 
sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  constitution  between  the 
States  so  ratifying." 

But  more  than  nine  ratified ;  eleven  did  ;  leaving  North  Caro 
lina  and  Rhode  Island  out,  as  before  stated.  The  Union  was 
formed,  and  the  constitution  established,  for  those  that  had  rati 
fied,  and  the  government  proceeded  to  organization.  North 
Carolina  was  then  certainly  out  of  the  Union.  She  had  the 
right  and  power  to  remain  out.  If  she  had,  would  she  not  have 
been  foreign  to  it  ?  And,  consequently,  was  she  not  foreign 
whenever  the  government  went  into  operation  without  her  ratifi 
cation  ?  The  case  of  Vermont  is  more  in  point.  She  was  a 
separate  and  independent  community,  with  a  government  of  her 
own.  She  was  not  even  one  of  the  original  revolting  thirteen 
colonies.  She  had  never  been  united  in  the  old  Confederation, 
and  did  not  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 

[Mr.  COLLAMER,  of  Yermont,  interrupted,  and  said,  that  Ver 
mont  did  at  that  time  fully  recognize  the  authority  of  the  United 
States.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  but  not  over  her.  She  recognized 
the  authority  of  the  United  States  as  we  do  that  of  France  or 
England,  or  any  other  foreign  power.  She  was  a  distinct,  inde 
pendent  government  within  herself.  She  had  her  own  constitu 
tion,  her  own  legislature,  her  own  executive,  judiciary,  and 
military  establishment,  and  exercised  all  the  faculties  of  a 
sovereign  and  independent  State.  She  had  her  own  post-office 
department,  and  revenue  laws,  and  regulations  of  trade.  The 
United  States  did  not  attempt  to  exercise  any  jurisdiction  over 
her.  The  gentleman  from  Vermont  says,  that  New  York  claimed 
jurisdiction  over,  and  finally  gave  her  consent  for  the  admission 
of  Vermont  as  a  State.  This  is  true.  But  Vermont  did  not 
recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  New  York ;  she  bade  defiance  to 
it.  And  after  years  had  rolled  on  in  this  situation,  she  treated 
with  New  York,  as  one  sovereign  treats  with  another,  and  paid 
thirty  thousand  dollars  to  New  York,  for  a  relinquishment  of 
that  jurisdiction  which  she  would  not  allow  to  be  exercised,  and 
was  then  admitted  into  the  Union  as  one  of  the  States.  These 
are  the  facts  of  that  case.  Again :  from  the  contemporaneous 
history  of  the  times,  is  it  a  violent  presumption  to  suppose  that 
the  convention,  at  the  time  this  clause  of  the  constitution  was 
inserted,  were  looking  to  the  probability  of  some  of  the  other 
British  colonies  throwing  off  the  government  of  the  mother 
country,  and  uniting  with  us  ?  We  know  that  the  old  Articles 
of  Confederation  had  been  adopted  with  that  view,  for  they  con 
tained  an  express  provision,  that — 


296  SPEECH    ON"    THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

"  Canada,  acceding  to  this  confederation,  and  joining  in  the 
measures  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into  and  entitled 
to  all  the  advantages  of  this  Union ;  but  no  other  colony  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  same,  unless  such  admission  be  agreed  to  by 
nine  States." 

And  as  we  know  that  the  object  of  the  constitution  was  to 
remodel  the  Union,  and  enlarge  the  powers  of  Congress  as  well 
as  the  general  powers  of  the  government — and  we  find  in  the 
present  constitution  the  clause  which  it  contains  in  relation  to 
the  admission  of  new  States,  in  lieu  of  the  one  just  stated  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation — is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
the  same  idea  was  still  retained,  and  instead  of  requiring  the 
consent  of  nine  States,  or  two  thirds,  for  the  admission  of  any 
but  Canada,  that  it  was  the  intention  for  the  future  to  put  them 
all  upon  the  same  footing,  and  leave  it  with  Congress  to  admit 
them,  if  a  case  should  arise  ?  And  is  it  not  presumable,  that  if 
the  intention  had  been  to  withdraw  the  privilege  before  extended 
to  Canada  in  express  terms,  it  would  have  been  done  in  terms 
equalty  plain  and  explicit  ? 

But  again :  It  has  been  said,  that  whatever  Congress  does  in 
its  legislative  capacity  is  of  a  municipal  character,  and  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  laws,  which  are  subject  to  repeal ;  that  in  this  way 
one  Congress  cannot  bind  another  succeeding  one  ;  and  that, 
though  such  a  measure  as  is  proposed  might  be  adopted  this 
session,  yet  the  next  one  might  repeal  it,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
the  constitution  to  prevent  it,  etc.  But  is  it  true  that  Congress 
can  do  nothing  legislatively  which  is  not  municipal  in  its  nature, 
and  subject  to  repeal  ?  It  certainly  is  not.  So  far  from  this 
being  correct,  I  will  venture  to  affirm  that  no  action  of  Congress 
which  proposes  terms  to  other  parties  can  ever  be  constitu 
tionally  repealed  after  the  terms  have  been  acceded  to,  and 
rights  and  interests  have  thereby  accrued.  Besides  charters,  we 
have  a  number  of  such  acts.  All  our  acts  relating  to  patents  and 
land  grants  are  of  this  class.  And  how  did  this  government 
become  possessed  of  the  fertile  and  extensive  lands  of  Alabama 
and  Mississippi,  but  by  legislative  compact  and  agreement  with 
the  State  of  Georgia,  by  which  they  were  ceded  ?  And  could 
that,  or  any  other  similar  compact,  be  repealed  ?  And  how  does 
a  legislative  compact  between  this  government  and  a  foreign 
State  so  differ  in  its  nature  or  municipal  character  from  a  similar 
one  with  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  as  to  be  entirely  null 
and  void,  while  the  latter  remains  good,  effectual,  and  binding  ? 
But  I  cannot  dwell  upon  this. 

Another  objection  offered  is,  that  if  Texas  should  be  admitted 
as  a  State,  she  could  not  be  constitutionally  represented  on  this 
floor  and  in  the  Senate  for  some  time ;  for  the  constitution  de 
clares,  that  no  "  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not 
have  attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven 
years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  etc.,  and  "no  person  shall 


SPEECH   ON   THE  ANNEXATION   OF    TEXAS.  297 

be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty 
years,  and  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  etc. 
And  as  the  people  of  Texas  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
it  would  require  seven  and  nine  years,  respectively,  before  mem 
bers  to  the  House  and  Senate  could  be  chosen,  which  is  wholly 
inconsistent,  it  is  said,  with  the  idea  of  the  constitutional  admis 
sion  of  her  as  a  State.  But  what  is  to  be  understood  by  these 
clauses  of  the  constitution  ?  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr. 
DROMGOOLE)  yesterday  said  that  they  applied  only  to  naturalized 
foreigners  ;  that  residents  of  foreign  acquired  territory,  as  in  the 
case  of  Louisiana,  became  citizens  immediately,  without  naturali 
zation  ;  and,  therefore,  these  clauses  of  the  constitution  did  not 
refer  to  that  class  of  citizens.  This  may  be  a  correct  answer  to 
the  objection ;  but  I  have  another  in  my  mind,  which  ^eems  to 
me  much  more  satisfactory.  It  is  founded  in  the  nature  of  our 
government  and  the  meaning  of  the  term  United  States.  What 
are  we  to  understand  by  the  United  States  ?  No  particular 
number  of  States,  certainly,  for  an  indefinite  time ;  no  particular, 
unvarying  national  identity,  as  we  speak  of  England  or  France ; 
but  such  States  and  such  country  as  may  be  united  at  any  given 
time  under  the  constitution.  The  United  States,  at  first,  were 
but  eleven,  afterward  thirteen,  and  now  twenty-six ;  and  to  be  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  is  to  be  a  citizen  of  either  or  any  one 
of  them.  All  that  is  necessary  to  comply  with  these  requisitions 
of  the  constitution  is,  that  the  member  or  senator,  when  he  takes 
his  seat,  shall  have  been  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  States  for  the 
time  required.  If  Texas  be  admitted,  as  proposed,  she  immedi 
ately  becomes  one  of  the  United  States  ;  and  the  member  coming 
here,  who  shall  have  been  a  citizen  of  that  country  for  seven 
years,  will  of  course  have  been  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  THEN 
United  States  for  the  time  required.  This  must  have  been  the 
case  with  North  Carolina,  and  Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont,  before 
alluded  to ;  for  before  North  Carolina  came  in,  as  I  have  said, 
the  Union  was  formed,  the  government  was  organized,  and  the 
United  States,  as  then  formed  under  the  constitution,  were  well 
known.  North  Carolina  was  not  one  of  them ;  she  was  a  State 
to  herself,  with  her  own  government.  When  she  consented  to 
come  in,  arid  did  come  in,  she  then  became  one  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  though  her  members  had  never  been  citizens  of  the 
then  government,  yet  they  had  been  citizens  of  one  of  those 
States  which  formed  the  government  at  that  time,  and  were  con 
stitutionally  admitted.  So  with  Rhode  Island  afterward ;  and 
particularly  so  with  Vermont.  Her  people  never  had  been  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States,  and  had  never  acknowledged  them 
selves  to  be  citizens  of  either  of  the  old  thirteen  States.  And 
yet,  when  she  was  admitted,  she  became  one  of  the  States  of  the 
Union  ;  and  her  people,  who  had  been  her  citizens  for  seven  and 
nine  years,  had  been  citizens  for  those  respective  terms  of  one  of 
the  United  States,  as  they  then  existed  ;  and  so  will  it  be  with 


298  SPEECH   ON   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

Texas  and  her  citizens,  if  she  be  admitted  into  the  common  fra 
ternity  of  States. 

But  I  have  not  time  to  notice  more  of  the  objections.  I  have 
only  glanced  at  the  most  prominent  of  them ;  and  I  shall  now 
briefly  state  some  of  the  reasons  that  induce  me  to  favor  annexa 
tion  upon  the  principles  stated. 

And,  to  begin  negatively,  I  will  state  that  I  am  not  at  all  in 
fluenced  by  the  military  view  which  some  gentlemen  have  with 
much  earnestness  presented.  It  will  add  but  little  strength,  in 
my  opinion,  to  our  South-western  border  in  that  particular. 
Such,  at  least,  was  the  view  entertained  at  the  time  our  claim  was 
relinquished.  The  idea  of  an  army  landing  in  Texas,  and  march 
ing  several  hundred  miles  over  her  low  lands,  to  attack  the  city 
of  New  Orleans,  I  consider  almost  preposterous.  Other  consider 
ations  apart,  Texas  has  no  ports  of  sufficient  depth  of  water  at 
the  bar  to  allow  large  ships  to  enter,  as  we  see  by  the  report  of 
the  surve3^s  of  the  coast  before  us.  Galveston  is  the  best  port, 
and  that  has  but  twelve  feet  of  water  at  the  bar.  A  man  of  war 
could  never  enter  one  of  her  harbors. 

Neither  am  I  much  influenced  by  the  pecuniary  advantages  to 
be  derived  from  the  union  of  that  country  with  this — the  benefits 
of  trade,  commerce,  etc.  So  far  as  these  are  concerned,  the  acces 
sion  will  be  to  the  interests  exclusively  of  the  North  and  West. 
That  section  which  I  represent  will  have  no  part  or  share  in  them. 
The  North  will  have  an  enlarged  market  for  their  manufactures, 
and  will  have  a  new  competitor  in  the  field  against  the  South,  in 
the  growth  of  the  raw  material  which  she  now  has  to  buy,  and  by 
which  she  will  be  enabled  to  get  it  cheaper.  The  same  with  the 
West,  with  their  breadstuffs ;  while  the  South  will  have  nothing 
to  sell  to  the  people  of  Texas,  but  will  feel  sorely  her  formidable 
competition  in  the  production  of  cotton  and  sugar,  her  great  sta 
ples.  If  I  looked  to  these  views,  therefore,  only,  I  should  most 
certainly  oppose  it,  in  behalf  of  my  section;  for  I  take  it  for 
granted  that,  notwithstanding  the  same  staples  might  and  would 
be  grown  in  Texas,  whether  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it,  yet  they 
would  not  be  grown  to  such  extent,  and  the  whole  resources  of 
the  country  would  never  be  so  speedily  and  fully  developed  out 
of  the  Union,  as  they  will  be  if  once  brought  within  the  wholesome 
influence  of  our  laws  and  institutions.  I  am,  however,  influenced 
by  other  considerations.  These  I  will  state. 

In  the  first  place,  the  people  of  that  country  are  mostly  emi 
grants  from  this.  They  are  of  the  Ainerico- Anglo-Saxon  race. 
They  are  from  us,  and  of  us ;  bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our 
flesh.  Our  sympathies  are  with  them ;  and  they  have  an  attach 
ment  for  our  institutions  and  form  of  government,  and,  in  their 
struggles  for  the  establishment  of  the  same,  it  is  but  natural  that 
we  should  be  disposed  to  extend  them  a  helping  hand,  though  our 
individual  interests  may  not  be  thereby  advanced. 

Again:  I   consider  it  important  that   the   cotton   and   sugar 


SPEECH    ON   THE    ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS.  299 

growing  interests  of  this  continent,  as  far  as  possible,  should  be 
subject  to  the  same  laws — to  prevent  undue  advantages,  secured 
by  treaty,  separate  regulations  of  trade,  or  otherwise,  in  the  mar 
kets  of  the  world.  If  Texas  should  remain  out  of  the  Union,  and 
a  rivalship  should  spring  up  there  to  the  staples  of  the  South,  our 
interests  might  be  greatly  injured  by  regulations  with  other  coun 
tries,  partial  to  theirs,  and  discriminating  against  ours.  This 
cannot  be,  if  the  whole  be  made  subject  to  the  same  laws  and 
policy. 

Again:  A  large  section  of  that  country  lies  upon  navigable 
waters  flowing  into  the  Mississippi,  and  must  always  seek  a  mar 
ket  through  the  outlet  of  that  river.  More  than  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  worth  of  cotton,  produced  in  Texas  year  before 
last,  was  shipped  from  New  Orleans ;  first  paying  a  duty  upon 
entering  the  limits  of  our  country,  and  then  being  entitled  to  the 
drawback  upon  final  shipment.  All  this  is  inconvenient,  and  will 
continue  to  increase.  And  the  history  of  the  world  shows  the 
necessity,  for  the  peace  and  quiet  of  a  country,  that  the  navigation 
of  waters  should  be  free  and  equal  to  those  who  live  upon  their 
borders.  The  people  of  the  Western  country,  on  the  upper  Mis 
sissippi  and  its  branches,  felt  the  difficulties  attending  a  contrary 
state  of  things  when  Spain  held  the  mouth  of  that  noble  stream. 
Our  commerce,  upon  arriving  at  New  Orleans,  was  subject  to 
onerous  restrictions ;  difficulties  threatening  the  peace  of  this 
country  were  the  result ;  and  to  avoid  them,  was  perhaps  the  con 
trolling  reason  with  Mr.  Jefferson  for  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana. 
To  avoid  similar  ones  between  this  government  and  the  people 
of  that  section  to  which  I  have  alluded,  it  is  important  that  it 
should  be  brought  into  this  Union. 

Again :  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  because  it  will  afford  an  outlet,  a 
retreat,  for  our  accumulating  population.  It  will  open  a  new 
field  for  the  pioneer.  Our  people  are  disposed  to  roam.  They 
like  new  countries  and  new  lands ;  and  there  they  will  have 
opened  up  a  great  Southwest  within  our  own  country,  to  which 
the  tide  of  emigration  may  flow — to  which  our  people  may  go,  for 
the  purpose  of  gain,  adventure,  and  enterprise,  carrying  with 
them  their  customs,  their  habits,  their  laws,  and  "  household 
gods,"  without  incurring  the  liability  of  expatriation,  or  forfeiting 
the  inestimable  rights  and  privileges  of  being  American  citizens.^ 
k  With  this  question  is  also  to  be  decided  another  and  a  greater 
one  ;  which  is,  whether  the  limits  of  this  Republic  are  ever  to  be 
enlarged  ?  This  is  an  important  step  in  settling  the  principle  of 
our  future  extension.  Nor  do  I  concur  with  gentlemen  who  seem 
to  apprehend  so  much  danger  from  that  quarter.  We  were  the 
other  day  reminded  by  the  gentleman  from  Yermont  (Mr.  COLLA- 
MER)  of  the  growth  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which  went  on  increas 
ing  and  enlarging  until  it  became  unwieldly,  and  fell  of  its  own 
weight ;  and  of  the  present  extent  of  England,  stretching  to  all 
sections  of  the  world,  governing  one  sixth  of  the  human  family, 


300  SPEECH    ON    THE   ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS. 

and  which  is  now  hardly  able  to  keep  together  its  extensive  parts. 
But  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  these  cases.  Rome  ex 
tended  her  dominions  by  conquests.  She  made  the  rude  inhabi 
tants  of  her  provinces  subjects  and  slaves.  She  compelled  them 
to  bear  the  yoke ;  jugum  subire  was  the  requisitions  of  her  chief 
tains ;  and  none  who  were  overcome  by  her  arms  could  escape 
the  ignominy.  England  extends  her  dominion  and  power  upon  a 
different  principle.  Hers  is  the  principle  of  colonization.  Hei 
distant  provinces  and  dependencies  are  subject  to  her  laws,  but 
are  deprived  of  the  rights  of  representation.  But  with  us  a  new 
system  has  commenced,  suited  to  and  characteristic  of  the  age. 
It  is,  if  you  please,  the  system  of  a  confederation  of  States,  or  a 
Republic  formed  by  the  union  of  the  people  of  separate  indepen 
dent  States  or  communities,  yielding  so  much  of  the  national 
character  or  sovereign  powers  as  are  necessary  for  national  and 
foreign  purposes,  and  retaining  all  others  for  local  and  domestic 
objects  to  themselves  separately  and  severally.  And  who  shall 
undertake  to  say  to  what  extent  this  system  may  not  go  ?  Mr. 
Madison  laid  down  the  rule,  in  speaking  of  our  system,  which  he 
called  the  "  basis  of  unmixed  and  extensive  Republics,"  that  the 
"  natural  limit"  to  which  it  may  go  is  "  that  distance  from  the 
centre  which  will  barely  allow  the  representatives  of  the  people  to 
meet  as  often  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  administration  of  public 
affairs."  And  upon  this  rule,  in  consideration  of  the  improve 
ments  of  the  age,  the  facilities  of  travel  and  the  transmission  of 
intelligence,  who  can  say  that  this  entire  continent  is  too  wide 
and  extensive?  The  distance  from  this  place  to  Oregon  and 
California,  in  a  few  years,  will  be  travelled  in  as  short  a  time  as  it 
was  to  Georgia  when  Mr.  Madison  wrote.  Then  it  required  from 
twenty  to  thirty  days  for  a  Representative  from  that  State,  our 
extreme  Southwest  at  that  time,  to  come  to  the  seat  of  govern 
ment  ;  and  now  the  same  distance  is  performed  in  three  days. 
And  representatives  from  Louisiana,  five  or  six  hundred  miles 
the  other  side,  now  require  less  than  half  the  time  then  required 
by  those  from  Georgia,  to  come  from  their  remote  districts.  And 
who  can  tell  what  improvements  for  the  speed  of  travel  are  yet  in 
store  ?  New  elements  in  nature  are  being  daily  brought  into  sub 
serviency  to  man.  When  Mr.  Madison  penned  the  remarks  I 
have  quoted,  in  1181,  the  power  of  steam  was  unknown,  and  other 
agencies  now  used  were  not  dreamed  of.  Then  it  would  have  re 
quired  a  whole  day  to  have  got  news  from  this  place — not  this 
city,  for  there  was  none  here  then — to  Baltimore  ;  now  it  requires 
but  an  instant,  as  quick  as  thought  or  lightning ;  and,  with  com 
paratively  a  small  amount  of  funds,  the  same  facilities  could 
be  extended  to  Boston,  Cincinnati,  and  New  Orleans,  or  even  to 
Astoria,  upon  the  Pacific. 

We  live,  sir,  not  only  in  a  new  hemisphere,  but,  indeed,  in  a 
new  age  ;  and  we  have  started  a  new  system  of  government,  as 
new  and  as  different  from  those  of  the  old  world  as  the  Baconian 


SPEECH   OX   THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  301 

system  of  philosophy  was  novel  and  different  from  the  Aristotlean, 
and  destined,  perhaps,  to  produce  quite  as  great  a  revolution  in 
the  moral  and  political  world  as  his  did  in  the  scientific.  Ours  is 
the  true  American  system,  and,  though  it  is  still  regarded  by 
some  as  an  experiment,  yet,  so  far,  it  has  succeeded  beyond  the 
expectations  of  many  of  its  best  friends.  And  who  is  prepared 
now  to  rise  up  and  say,  "  Thus  far  it  shall  go,  and  no  further  ?" 

But  I  am  in  favor  of  this  measure  for  another  reason.  It  is,  as 
the  honorable  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  said 
in  his  opening  speech,  in  one  sense  and  in  one  view,  a  sectional 
question — a  Southern  question.  It  will  not  promote  our  pecuni 
ary  interests,  but  it  will  give  us  political  weight  and  importance ; 
and  to  this  view  I  am  not  insensible.  And  though  I  have  a  pa 
triotism  that  embraces,  I  trust,  all  parts  of  the  Union,  and  which 
causes  me  to  rejoice  to  see  all  prosperous  and  happy;  and  though 
I  believe  I  am  free  from  the  influence  of  unjust  prejudices  and 
jealousies  toward  any  part  or  section,  yet  I  must  confess  that  my 
feelings  of  attachment  are  most  ardent  toward  that  with  which  all 
my  interests  and  associations  are  identified.  And  is  it  not  natu 
ral  and  excusable  that  they  should  be  ?  The  South  is  my  home — 
my  fatherland.  There  sleep  the  ashes  of  my  sires  and  grand- 
sires  ;  there  are  my  hopes  and  prospects ;  with  her  my  fortunes 
are  cast ;  her  fate  is  my  fate,  and  her  destiny  my  destiny.  Nor 
do  I  wish  "  to  hoax"  gentlemen  from  other  sections  upon  this 
point,  as  some  have  intimated.  I  am  candid  and  frank  in  my  ac 
knowledgment.  This  acquisition  will  give  additional  power  to 
the  south-western  section  in  the  national  councils  ;  and  for  this 
purpose  I  want  it — not  that  I  am  desirous  to  see  an  extension  of 
the  "  area  of  slavery,"  as  some  gentlemen  have  said  its  effects 
would  be.  I  am  no  defender  of  slavery  in  the  abstract.  Liberty 
always  had  charms  for  me,  and  I  would  rejoice  to  see  all  the  sons 
of  Adam's  family,  in  every  land  and  clime,  in  the  enjoyment  of 
those  rights  which  are  set  forth  in  our  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  as  "  natural  and  inalienable,"  if  a  stern  necessity,  bear 
ing  the  marks  and  impress  of  the  hand  of  the  Creator  himself,  did 
not,  in  some  cases,  interpose  and  prevent.  Such  is  the  case  with 
the  States  where  slavery  now  exists.  But  I  have  no  wish  to  see 
it  extended  to  other  countries  ;  and  if  the  annexation  of  Texas 
were  for  the  sole  purpose  of  extending  slavery  where  it  does  not 
now  and  would  not  otherwise  exist,  I  should  oppose  it.  This  is 
not  its  object,  nor  will  it  be  its  effect.  Slavery  already  exists  in 
Texas,  and  will  continue  to  exist  there.  The  same  necessity  that 
prevails  in  the  Southern  States  prevails  there,  and  will  prevail 
wherever  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  African  races  are  blended  in  the 
same  proportions.  It  matters  not,  so  far  as  this  institution  is 
concerned  in  the  abstract,  whether  Texas  be  in  the  Union  or  out 
of  it.  That,  therefore,  is  not  my  object ;  but  it  is  the  political 
advantages  it  will  secure,  with  the  question  settled  as  proposed — 
leaving  no  door  open  for  future  agitation — and  thus  preserving  a 


302  SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN  WAR. 

proper  balance  between  the  different  sections  of  the  country.   This 
is  my  object ;  and  is  it  not  proper  and  right  ? 

If  we  look  around,  we  see  the  East,  by  her  economy,  her  indus 
try,  and  enterprise,  by  her  commerce,  navigation,  and  mechanic 
arts,  growing  opulent,  strong  and  powerful.  The  West,  which  a 
few  years  ago  was  nothing  but  an  unbroken  wilderness,  embrac 
ing  the  broad  and  fertile  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  where  the 
voice  of  civilization  was  never  heard,  is  now  teeming  with  its  mil 
lions  of  population.  The  tide  of  emigration,  still  rolling  in  that 
direction,  has  already  reached  the  base  of  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
and  will  soon  break  over  those  lofty  barriers,  and  be  diffused  in 
the  extensive  plains  of  Oregon. .  Already  the  West  vies  for  the 
ascendancy  on  this  floor ;  and  why  should  not  the  South  also  be 
advancing  ?  Are  her  limits  never  to  be  enlarged,  and  her  influ 
ence  and  power  never  to  be  increased  ?  Is  she  to  be  left  behind  in 
this  race  for  distinction  and  aggrandizement,  if  you  please  ?  As 
one  of  her  sons,  I  say  no.  Let  her,  too,  enter  the  glorious  rival- 
ship  ;  not  with  feelings  of  strife,  jealousy,  or  envy — such  senti 
ments  are  not  characteristic  of  her  people — but  with  aspirations 
prompted  by  the  spirit  of  a  laudable  emulation  and  an  honorable 
ambition. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JUNE  16,  1846. 

The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union, 
(Mr.  COBB  in  the  chair,)  and  having  under  consideration  the  bill  making 
appropriations  for  the  Indian  Department  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  30th 
June,  1847 — 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said  he  had  not  intended  to  say  any  thing  on 
the  present  bill  until  he  found  the  debate  taking  the  range  it  had 
assumed ;  and  he  should  now,  following  the  example  of  others,  say 
not  one  word  upon  the  subject  properly  before  the  committee,  but 
proceed  to  present  some  views  upon  another  topic,  which  he  would 
like  to  have  discussed  at  the  proper  time  ;  but  as  the  opportunity 
was  not  then  afforded  him,  and  as  he  still  felt  a  lively  interest  in 
regard  to  it,  he  should  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity  now  pre 
sented. 

I  allude,  Mr.  Chairman,  (said  Mr.  S.,)  to  the  Mexican  war;  and 
I  will  state  in  the  outset  that  I  am  not,  as  some  gentlemen  seem 
to  be,  the  advocate  of  war  in  the  abstract — war  for  war's  sake.  I 
hold  all  wars  to  be  great  national  calamities.  I  do  not  maintain 
that  war  can  or  should  always  be  avoided.  I  do  not  belong  to  the 
peace  party,  so  called ;  I  am  no  non-resistance  man ;  I  am  far  from 
holding  that  all  wars  are  wrong.  But  I  do  hold  that  they  ought 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   WAK.  303 

never  to  be  rushed  into  blindly  or  rashly.  This  ultima  ratio — this 
last  resort  of  nations  to  settle  matters  of  dispute  or  disagreement 
between  them,  should  always  be  avoided,  when  it  can  be  done  with 
out  a  sacrifice  of  national  rights  or  honor.  And  the  greatest  re 
sponsibility  rests  upon  those  at  the  head  of  affairs,  to  whom  are 
confided  the  interests  and  destinies  of  a  country,  that  they  do  not 
disregard  the  heavy  obligations  of  this  most  important  trust. 

These  general  principles,  universally  held  in  this  age  and  coun 
try,  I  believe,  to  be  correct,  shall  govern  me  in  what  I  have  to  say 
upon  the  present  occasion. 

Having  thus  premised,  I  shall  proceed  to  the  subject  I  propose 
to  discuss,  and  shall  first  inquire,  into  the  true  cause  or  origin  of 
this  war ;  and  shall  then  speak  of  the  manner  and  spirit  with  which 
it  should  be  prosecuted.  First,  as  to  its  cause. 

The  country,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  time,  is  in  a  strange  and 
singular  condition.  We  are  at  war  with  a  neighboring  Republic ; 
an  army  of  fifty  thousand  men  has  been  authorized  to  be  raised ; 
and  millions  of  money  have  been  appropriated  to  prosecute  it ;  and 
millions  more  will  doubtless  have  to  be  raised  and  appropriated  for 
the  same  object.  And  yet  the  country  seems  to  be  anxiously 
waiting  information  as  to  how  this  state  of  things  has  been  brought 
about.  Some  seem  to  consider  it  a  necessary  result  from  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas,  or,  in  other  words,  a  war  that  Mexico  is  waging 
against  us  on  account  of  that  measure.  But  I  intend  to  show,  as 
I  think  I  can  most  clearly  do,  that  the  whole  affair  is  properly 
chargeable  to  the  imprudence,  indiscretion,  and  mismanagement 
of  our  own  executive ;  that  the  war  has  been  literally  provoked 
when  there  was  no  necessity  for  it,  and  could  have  been  easily 
avoided  without  any  detriment  to  our  rights,  interests,  or  honor 
as  a  nation.  Indeed,  sir,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  a  strange 
infatuation  seems  to  have  governed  this  administration  ever  since 
it  came  into  power  in  reference  to  our  foreign  affairs ;  a  war  with 
some  power  or  other  seems  to  have  been  its  leading  object.  The 
assertion  of  untenable  rights  in  the  Oregon  territory  looked  to,  if 
it  did  not  seek,  a  rupture  with  England.  Happily  for  the  country, 
by  the  interposition  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Senate,  that  question,  if 
rumor  be  correct,  is  about  to  be  settled.  And  in  the  discussion 
of  this  question  I  wish  to  remind  gentlemen  of  what  they  appear 
sometimes  to  forget,  that  the  executive  and  his  cabinet  are  not  the 
country,  and  that  it  is  quite  possible  for  him  and  them  to  be  wrong 
without  putting  the  country  in  the  same  condition.  There  is  a 
wide  difference  between  the  ministers  and  the  sovereign.  In  this 
country  sovereignty  resides,  not  in  the  throne  or  the  executive, 
but  in  the  people.  The  administration  is  but  the  ministry ;  they 
are  but  public  servants,  and  should  be  held  to  strict  accountability. 
I  hope  never  to  see  the  day  when  the  executive  of  this  country 
shall  be  considered  identical  with  the  country  itself  in  its  foreign 
relations,  or  when  any  man,  for  scanning  his  acts,  however  severely 
when  justly,  shall  on  that  account  be  charged  with  opposition  to 


304  SPEECH    ON   THE    MEXICAN   WAK. 

his  country.  Such  is  the  case  only  where  allegiance  is  due  to  a 
crown,  where  the  people's  rulers  are  their  masters  ;  but,  thank  God, 
in  this  country  we  can  yet  hold  our  rulers  to  an  account.  How 
long  we  shall  be  permitted  or  be  disposed  to  do  so  I  know  not ; 
but  whenever  we  cease  to  do  it  we  shall  become  unfit  to  be  free. 

With  these  views  and  these  feelings,  and  with  this  spirit,  I  go 
into  the  investigation  of  the  cause  of  this  war,  the  expenditure  of 
so  much  money,  the  raising  of  so  large  and  great  a  military  force, 
and  the  breaking  up  of  the  repose  of  that  general  peace  with  which 
we  have  been  so  signally  blessed  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century. 
This  is  the  inquiry  upon  which  I  am  about  to  enter ;  it  is  a  grave 
and  important  inquiry,  and  one  to  which  the  attention  of  the  peo 
ple  of  this  country  should  be  directed ;  and  I  assert  in  my  place, 
that  the  immediate  cause  of  all  these  things,  and  the  present  un 
looked-for  state  of  affairs,  is  properly  chargeable  upon  the  admin 
istration  ;  for  the  advance  movement  of  our  troops,  or  "  army  of 
occupation,"  as  it  is  called,  from  Corpus  Christ!,  on  the  Nueces, 
to  Matamoras,  on  the  Rio  Grande,  into  a  territory,  to  say  the  least 
of  it,  well  known  to  be  in  dispute  between  Texas  and  Mexico ;  this, 
I  say,  was  the  immediate  occasion  of  hostilities ;  and  if  our  army 
had  been  permitted  to  remain  at  Corpus  Christi,  where  it  had  been 
since  August  last,  there  is  no  evidence  or  reason  to  believe  that 
there  would  have  been  any  outbreak  between  our  people  and  the 
Mexicans  upon  the  frontier.  This  is  my  first  proposition  in  con 
sidering  the  cause  of  this  war,  which  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  make 
perfectly  clear ;  and  then  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  make  it  appeal- 
equally  clear  that  that  step  was  unnecessary  for  any  of  the  legitimate 
purposes  for  which  the  army  was  sent  to  Texas  ;  also,  that  it  was 
improper,  under  the  circumstances,  as  being  calculated  to  irritate 
and  provoke  hostilities ;  and  further,  that  it  was  a  step  which  the 
President  was  not  clothed  with  the  proper  power  legally  and  right 
fully  to  take,  without  authority  from  Congress. 

My  first  proposition  is,  that  the  immediate  cause  of  hostilities 
between  our  army  and  the  Mexican  forces,  was  the  advance  move 
ment  from  Corpus  Christi,  upon  the  Nueces  river,  to  Matamoras, 
upon  the  Rio  Grande  or  Del  Norte.  And,  to  sustain  this,  I  need  but 
refer  to  the  history  of  the  case,  given  by  the  President  himself  in 
the  documents  accompanying  his  message  to  the  House,  when  he 
asked  us  to  recognize  a  state  of  war  with  Mexico  ;  a  singular  re 
quest,  by-the-by,  for  the  President  to  make,  when  the  constitution 
gives  Congress  the  sole  power  to  declare  war.  Perhaps  some 
gentlemen  may  suppose  that  that  clause  in  the  constitution  simply 
means  that  when  the  President  gets  us  into  a  war,  it  is  the  business 
of  Congress  then  to  make  it  known — to  declare  it — or  recognize 
the  fact.  This,  however,  is  not  my  understanding  of  it.  Congress 
alone  has  the  right  and  power  to  engage  in  war.  The  President 
has  the  right  to  repel  hostilities  ;  but  not  by  his  policy  with  other 
nations  to  bring  on  and  involve  the  country  in  a  war  without  con 
sultation  with  Congress. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   WAK.  305 

But  to  proceed  with  the  argument  and  the  history  of  the  case. 
Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  annexation  last  year, 
it  will  be  recollected  that  General  Taylor,  with  a  large  portion  of 
the  army,  was  ordered  to  Texas  to  protect  that  country  and  its 
citizens  from  an  invasion  of  Mexico,  if  any  should  be  made  or 
threatened.  He  arrived  there  in  the  month  of  August,  and  took 
a  position  at  Corpus  Christi,  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Nueces,  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  question  of  annexation  may  be  considered  as  having  been 
settled  by  the  people  of  Texas.  Her  convention  had  been  called, 
and  her  people  were  almost  unanimous  in  favor  of  it.  If 
Mexico  had  intended  an  invasion  on  account  of  that  act,  that  was 
the  time  to  have  made  it.  But  there  was  no  invasion ;  and  there 
is  no  evidence  of  any  intention  on  her  part  to  offer  hostile  re 
sistance  to  that  measure.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  of  any  hos 
tilities  on  her  part  until  the  advance  movement  of  our  army  alluded 
to,  which  took  place  in  the  month  of  March  of  this  year.  During 
this  interval  of  time,  a  regular  correspondence  seems  to  have  been 
kept  up  between  General  Taylor  and  the  War  Department  here, 
concerning  the  state  of  Mexican  feeling.  This  correspondence 
accompanies  the  President's  message.  It  is  copious,  and  I  take 
it  to  be  a  true  exposition  of  the  real  state  of  affairs,  as  well  as  the 
disposition  of  the  Mexicans  during  that  time. 

On  the  15th  of  August,  then,  in  his  first  communication  on  this 
subject  after  arriving  at  Corpus  Christi,  General  Taylor  writes : 
"  That  General  Arista  was  to  leave  Monterey  on  the  4th  of  that 
month  for  Matamoras,  with  fifteen  hundred  men,  five  hundred 
being  cavalry."  "  Nor  do  I  hear  that  the  reported  concentration 
of  troops  at  Matamoras  is  for  any  purpose  of  invasion." 

On  the  20th  of  August,  from  the  same  place,  he  wrote :  "  Cara 
vans  of  traders  arrive  occasionally  from  the  Rio  Grande,  but  bring 
no  news  of  importance.  They  represent  that  there  are  no  regular 
troops  on  that  river,  except  at  Matamoras ;  and  do  not  seem  to  be 
aware  of  any  preparation  for  a  demonstration  on  this  side  of  the 
river." 

On  the  6th  of  September,  he  wrote :  That  "  a  confidential  agent, 
despatched  some  days  since  at  Matamoras,  has  returned,  and  re 
ports  that  no  extraordinary  preparations  are  going  forward  there ; 
that  the  garrison  does  not  seem  to  have  increased ;  and  that  our 
Consul  is  of  opinion  there  will  be  no  declaration  of  war." 

On  the  14th  of  September,  he  wrote :  "  We  have  no  news  of  in 
terest  from  the  frontier ;  Arista,  at  the  last  accounts,  was  at  Mier, 
but  without  any  force ;  nor  is  there  as  yet  any  concentration  of 
troops  on  the  river." 

On  the  4th  of  October,  he  wrote :  "  Mexico  having  as  yet  made 
no  positive  declaration  of  war,  or  committed  any  overt  act  of  hos 
tilities,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty,  under  my  instructions,  particularly 
those  of  July  8th.  to  make  a  forward  movement  to  the  Rio  Grande, 
without  authority  from  the  War  Department." 
20 


306  SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN    WAR. 

On  the  llth  of  October,  he  wrote:  "Recent  arrivals  from  the 
Rio  Grande  bring  no  news  or  information  of  a  different  aspect 
from  that  which  I  reported  in  my  last.  The  views  expressed  in 
previous  communications  relative  to  the  pacific  disposition  of  the 
border  people,  on  both  sides  of  the  river,  are  continually  confirmed." 

All  this  time  General  Taylor  was  remaining  at  Corpus  Christi. 
The  propositions  for  annexation  had  been  before  the  people  of 
Texas,  as  I  have  said ;  and  it  was  clear  and  well  understood  that 
that  measure  would  be  speedily  consummated.  And  yet  no  demon 
stration  was  made  by  Mexico,  and  no  evidence  of  hostilities  was 
evinced.  Nay,  more,  sir ;  so  late  as  the  7th  of  January  last — some 
time  after  annexation  was  complete,  and  after  Texas  had  been 
admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union ;  after  that  "  bloodless  achieve 
ment  "  of  so  large  a  territory,  of  which  the  President  spoke  in  his 
annual  message,  had  been  fully  accomplished ;  and,  in  deed  and  in 
truth,  "without  a  resort  to  the  arm  of  force" — General  Taylor 
writes  from  the  same  place,  where  he  was  still  stationed,  and  where 
he  should  have  remained :  "  General  Arista  rests  quiet,  to  see,  per 
haps,  what  success  attends  General  Paredes.  In  this  part  of  the 
country  the  people  are  in  favor  of  peace ;  and  I  should  judge,"  he 
adds,  "  of  a  treaty  with  the  United  States." 

But,  on  the  13th  of  January  of  this  year,  it  will  be  recollected, 
the  order  was  given  by  the  Secretary  of  War  for  the  forward  move 
ment  of  the  army  to  Matamoras.  And  this,  as  I  assert,  was  the 
cause  of  the  outbreak ;  for,  no  sooner  was  this  known,  and  prepa 
rations  were  making  for  that  purpose  in  our  camp,  than  the  temper 
of  the  people  in  that  quarter  began  to  change — I  mean  the  temper 
of  the  Mexican  people  living  in  the  province  of  Tamaulipas,  on 
this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande — and  the  tone  of  General  Taylor's 
letters  immediately  changed.  On  the  4th  of  February  he  acknow 
ledges  the  reception  of  the  order  of  the  13th  January;  and  on  the 
16th  of  February  writes :  "  Many  reports  will  doubtless  reach  the 
Department  giving  exaggerated  accounts  of  Mexican  preparations 
to  resist  our  advance,  if  not,  indeed,  to  attempt  an  invasion  of 
Texas." 

This  shows  that  opposition  to  that  movement  had  commenced, 
and  resistance  was  threatened ;  and  this  is  the  FIRST  intimation 
General  Taylor  gives  of  any  hostility  in  that  quarter  on  the  part 
of  the  Mexicans,  from  the  time  he  first  arrived  there,  in  the  summer 
of  last  year — six  months  after  he  had  been  quietly  settled  at  Cor 
pus  Christi,  without  any  offer  to  resist,  with  the  border  people 
quiet,  peaceable,  and  satisfied,  desirous,  as  he  thought,  of  peace 
and  a  treaty  with  this  country — with  no  concentration  of  forces, 
and  no  disposition  to  fight. 

On  the  8th  of  March  General  Taylor  commenced  his  forward 
movement,  and  on  the  llth  the  whole  army  left  Corpus  Christi 
for  Matamoras.  The  next  time  we  hear  from  him  is  on  the  18th 
March,  when  he  is  one  hundred  and  nineteen  miles  on  his  route. 
He  then  states,  that  "  within  the  last  two  days  our  advance  has 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   WAK.  307 

met  with  small  armed  parties  of  Mexicans,  who  seemed  disposed 
to  avoid  us.  They  were  doubtless  thrown  out  to  get  information 
of  our  advance." 

The  next  we  hear  from  him  is  the  account  of  the  21st  of  March, 
of  the  resistance  offered  to  his  crossing  the  Little  Colorado,  and 
the  protest  of  the  Mexicans  against  his  proceeding  to  Matamoras. 
Further  on,  and  just  before  getting  to  Point  Isabel,  he  was  met 
with  a  civil  deputation,  with  the  Prefect  of  the  district  of  Tamau- 
lipas  at  its  head,  "  protesting  against  his  occupation  of  the  coun 
try."  No  attention  was  paid  to  this ;  his  orders  were  imperative, 
and  soon  the  buildings  at  Point  Isabel  were  seen  in  flames,  and 
all  the  inhabitants  fled  to  Matamoras,  except  "two  or  three  inof 
fensive  Mexicans." 

The  next  we  hear  of  General  Taylor  is,  on  the  29th  of  March, 
at  his  camp,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  opposite  Mata 
moras.  And  now  he  writes :  "  The  attitude  of  the  Mexicans  is  so 
far  decidedly  hostile.  An  interview  has  been  held,  by  my  direc 
tion,  with  the  military  authorities  in  Matamoras,  but  with  no 
satisfactory  result.  Under  this  state  of  things,  I  must  again  and 
urgently  call  your  attention  to  the  necessity  of  speedily  sending 
recruits  to  this  army." 

It  may  be  well  here  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
notes  of  the  interview  had  with  the  Mexican  authorities,  to  which 
General  Taylor  alluded  in  his  last  letter.  From  these  notes  I 
read :  "  General  Yega  then  stated,  that  he  had  been  directed  to 
receive  such  communications  as  General  Worth  might  present 
from  his  commanding  general — going  on  to  say,  that  the  march 
of  '*>e  United  States  troops  through  a  part  of  the  Mexican  terri 
tory  (Tamaulipas)  was  an  act  of  war."  General  Worth  asked, 
"Has  Mexico  declared  war  against  the  United  States?"  General 
Yega:  "No."  General  Worth:  "Are  the  two  countries  still  at 
peace?"  General  Yega:  "Yes."  General  Yega  afterward,  in 
the  interview,  asked :  "  Is  it  the  intention  of  General  Taylor  to 
remain  with  his  army  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande?"  Gen 
eral  Worth :  "  Most  assuredly ;  and  there  to  remain  until  directed 
otherwise  by  his  government."  General  Yega  remarked,  that 
"  we  felt  indignation  at  seeing  the  American  flag  placed  on  the 
Rio  Grande,  a  portion  of  the  Mexican  territory." 

This  interview  took  place  on  the  28th  March  last,  soon  after 
General  Taylor's  arrival  opposite  Matamoras ;  and  it  shows  clearly 
the  state  of  feeling  produced  by  this  advanced  movement,  and 
which  resulted  in  the  collision  which  so  soon  after  followed.  For 
matters  now  were  rapidly  coming  to  a  crisis ;  and  the  next  we 
hear  from  General  Taylor  is  on  the  15th  April,  when  he  writes : 

"  I  have  to  report,  that,  on  the  llth  instant,  General  Ampudia  arrived 
at  Matamoras  with  two  hundred  cavalry,  the  remainder  of  his  force,  Vari 
ously  estimated  from  two  thousand  to  three  thousand  men,  being  some 
distance  in  rear  on  the  route  from  Monterey.  Immediately  after  assuming 
the  chief  command,  General  Ampudia  ordered  all  Americans  to  leave 


308  SPEECH   ON   TH-E    MEXICAN   WAR. 

Matamorns  within  twenty-four  hours,  and  repair  to  Victoria,  a  town  in  the 
interior  of  Tamaulipas.  He  had  taken  the  same  severe  measure  at  Rey- 
nosa,  on  his  way  hither.  On  the  12th,  I  received  from  General  Ampudia 
a  despatch,  summoning  me  to  withdraw  my  force  within  twenty-four 
hours,  and  to  fall  back  beyond  the  river  Nueces.  To  this  communication 
I  replied  on  the  12th,  saying  that  I  should  not  retrograde  from  my  posi 
tion.  Copies  of  this  correspondence  are  enclosed  herewith.  I  considered 
the  letter  of  General  Ampudia  sufficient  to  warrant  me  in  blocking  up  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  stopping  all  supplies  for  Matamoras,  orders  for  which 
have  been  given  to  the  naval  commander  at  Brazos  Santiago." 

The  communication  from  Ampudia,  to  which  General  Taylor 
refers,  is  in  the  following  words : 

[Translation.] 
FOURTH  MILITARY  DIVISION.  General-in-Chief: 

To  explain  to  you  the  many  grounds  for  the  just  grievances  felt  by  the 
Mexican  nation,  caused  by  the  United  States  Government,  would  be  a 
loss  of  time,  and  an  insult  to  your  good  sense ;  I,  therefore,  pass  at  once 
to  such  explanations  as  I  consider  of  absolute  necessity. 

Your  government,  in  an  incredible  manner — you  will  even  permit  me  to 
gay  an  extravagant  one,  if  the  usage  or  general  rules  established  and 
received  among  all  civilized  nations  are  regarded — has  not  only  insulted, 
but  has  exasperated  the  Mexican  nation,  bearing  its  conquering  banner 
to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Bravo  del  Norte ;  and,  in  this  case,  by  explicit 
arid  definite  orders  of  my  government,  which  neither  can,  will,  nor  should 
receive  new  outrages,  I  require  you,  in  all  form,  and,  at  latest,  in  the  per 
emptory  term  of  twenty-four  hours,  to  break  up  your  camp,  and  retire  to 
the  other  bank  of  the  Nueces  river,  while  our  governments  are  regulating 
the  pending  question  in  relation  to  Texas.  If  you  insist  in  remaining 
upon  the  soil  of  the  department  of  Tamaulipas,  it  will  clearly  result  that 
arms,  and  arms  alone,  must  decide  the  question  ;  and  in  that  case,  I  advise 
you  that  we  accept  the  war  to  which,  with  so  much  injustice  on  your 
part,  you  provoke  us ;  and  that,  on  our  part,  this  war  shall  be  conducted 
conformably  to  the  principles  established  by  the  most  civilized  nations ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  law  of  nations  and  of  war  shall  be  the  guide  of  my 
operations  ;  trusting  that  on  your  part  the  same  will  be  observed. 

With  this  view,  I  tender  you  the  considerations  due  to  your  person  and 
respectable  office. 

God  and  Liberty  ! 
HEADQUARTERS  AT  MATAMORAS,  2  o'clock,  P.  Jf.,  April  12,  1846. 

PEDRO  D'AMPUDIA. 

Senor  General-in-Chief  of  the  United  States  Army,  Don  Z.  TAYLOR. 

In  this  communication  it  will  be  perceived  that  General  Am 
pudia  did  not  order  General  Taylor  to  evacuate  Texas — to  go 
beyond  the  Sabine — but  to  fall  back  beyond  the  Nueces,  to  with 
draw  from  what  he  considered  the  Mexican  district  of  Tamaulipas, 
until  the  two  governments  should  settle  the  pending  question  in 
relation  to  Texas.  General  Taylor's  orders,  however,  from  the 
War  Department  were  positive ;  he  was  to  hold  his  position  op 
posite  Matamoras.  And  what  immediately  ensued  is  well  known : 
first,  the  capture  of  Captain  Thornton  and  his  men ;  and,  soon 
after,  the  ever-to-be-remembered  battles  of  the  8th  and  9th  of  May, 
which,  so  far  as  the  bravery  and  gallantry  of  our  officers  and 
army  is  concerned,  are  amongst  the  brightest  and  most  glorious 


SPEECH   OX   THE   MEXICAN   WAR.  309 

achievements  in  our  history.  I  have  nothing  to  say  against  that. 
I  have  every  assurance  that  our  arms  will  ever  be  victorious,  let 
them  come  in  conflict  with  whatever  foe  they  may ;  and  whatever 
laurels  or  honors  they  may  win,  whether  on  land  or  the  ocean, 
when  acting  in  obedience  to  orders,  I  shall  claim  an  interest  in, 
as  an  addition  to  the  common  stock  of  American  fame.  But  I 
am  now  giving  the  history  of  the  circumstances  that  led  to  this 
result.  I  have  been  minute  in  details,  in  tracing  it  to  its  proper 
source,  to  show  that  there  was  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  Mexico 
evinced  to  invade  this  country  or  Texas  on  account  of  annexa 
tion  ;  and  if  the  army  had  remained  out  of  the  country  upon  the 
Rio  Grande,  which  was  in  dispute  between  Texas  and  Mexico, 
both  claiming  it,  there  would  have  been  no  hostility  on  the  part 
of  Mexico ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  cause  of  this  war  was  the 
taking  military  possession  of  the  disputed  territory.  And,  if  fur 
ther  authority  is  wanted  to  establish  this  position,  I  refer  to  the 
letter  of  the  present  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  Mexico  to 
Mr.  Slidell,  of  the  12th  of  March  last.  It  is  in  that  letter  in 
which  he  gave  the  reasons  of  his  government  for  refusing  to  re 
ceive  him  as  a  resident  minister,  but  not  as  a  commissioner  to 
settle  the  question  of  boundary.  Speaking  of  the  views  and  feel 
ings  of  the  present  government  of  Mexico  upon  this  subject,  and 
their  intended  course  toward  the  United  States,  he  says  : 

"A  lover  of  peace,  she  would  wish  to  ward  off  this  sad  contingency ; 
and,  without  fearing  war,  she  would  desire  to  avoid  so  great  a  calamity  for 
both  countries.  For  this  she  has  offered  herself,  and  will  continue  to  offer 
herself,  open  to  all  honorable  means  of  conciliation,  and  she  anxiously 
desires  that  the  present  controversy  may  terminate  in  a  reasonable  and 
decorous  manner. 

"  In  the  actual  state  of  things,  to  say  that  Mexico  maintains  a  position 
of  quasi  hostility  with  respect  to  the  United  States,  is  to  add  a  new  offence 
to  her  previous  injuries.  Her  attitude  is  one  of  defence,  because  she 
sees  herself  unjustly  attacked  ;  because  a  portion  of  her  territory  is  occu 
pied  by  the  forces  of  a  nation,  intent,  without  any  right  whatever,  to 
possess  itself  of  it ;  because  her  ports  are  threatened  by  the  squadrons 
of  the  same  power.  Under  such  circumstances,  is  she  to  remain  inactive, ' 
without  taking  measures  suited  to  so  rigorous  an  emergency?" 

From  this  it  appears  that,  even  up  to  the  12th  of  March  last,  it 
was  not  the  intention  or  wish  of  Mexico  to  make  war  against  us ; 
and  that,  in  the  actual  state  of  things  then,  to  say  that  Mexico 
maintained  "  a  position  of  quasi  hostility  with  respect  to  the  United 
States,"  was  "  to  add  a  new  offence  to  her  previous  injuries."  Can 
any  man  doubt,  then,  that  if  our  army  had  not  been  pushed  for 
ward  to  the  Rio  Grande,  there  would  have  been  no  hostility, 
resistance,  or  war  with  Mexico  ? 

Then,  sir,  was  this  movement  necessary  for  any  of  the  legiti 
mate  purposes  for  which  our  army  was  sent  to  Texas  ?  There 
was  no  invasion  threatened,  there  was  no  violence  offered  to  the 
persons  or  property  of  the  citizens  of  Texas  that  required  this 
movement  to  give  any  additional  protection.  Beyond  Corpus 


310  SPEECH    ON   THE    MEXICAN"   WAE. 

Christi,  where  the  army  had  been  stationed  for  six  months,  there 
were  no  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  Texas  that  I  have  ever 
heard  of.  I  mean,  by  citizens  of  Texas,  those  who  acknowledge 
her  government,  and  come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  her  laws. 
Why,  then,  was  the  army,  at  great  cost  and  trouble,  marched  over 
and  across  that  "  stupendous  desert  between  the  Nueces  and  the 
Bravo"  (Rio  Grande),  which  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  stated,  when  he  offered  the  resolution  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  was  the  "natural  boundary  between  the 
Anglo-Saxon  and  the  Mauritanian  races  ?"  Was  there  a  man  on 
the  Rio  Grande  that  acknowledged  the  jurisdiction,  much  less 
that  claimed  the  protection,  of  the  laws  of  Texas  ?  Wherefore, 
then,  was  there  any  necessity  for  this  move  ?  Can  any  man  offer 
a  pretext  for  it  but  the  masked  design  of  provoking  Mexico  to 
war  ? 

But  this  move  was  not  only  unnecessary,  but  improper,  impru 
dent,  and  unwise.  For  it  was  known  that  the  friendly  relations 
between  this  country  and  Mexico  were  interrupted ;  and,  notwith 
standing  she  was  making  no  show  of  hostilities — her  people  being 
pacifically  inclined  on  the  border — yet  she  was  in  an  irritable 
mood,  if  you  please,  and  every  thing  calculated  to  excite  either 
her  government  or  her  people  by  a  wise  President  would  have 
been  avoided.  I  now  speak  without  reference  to  the  disputed 
character  of  that  country.  Even  if  it  were  admitted  that  the  Rio 
Grande  was  the  established  boundary  of  Texas,  as  much  so  as 
that  the  St.  Lawrence  is  the  boundary  between  us  and  Canada,  it 
was  improper,  under  the  circumstances,  to  send  an  army  upon  the 
border  of  a  country  at  peace  with  us,  and  not  only  this,  but  order 
them  to  construct  fortifications  and  mount  heavy  guns  right  oppo 
site  a  peaceful  town,  pointing  toward  the  main  square,  and  ready 
at  any  moment  to  "  spot"  any  place  in  it.  I  say,  sir,  this  was 
wrong,  and  it  was  calculated  to  provoke,  to  irritate,  and  to  bring 
on  a  conflict,  if  it  was  not  so  designed.  Suppose  any  nation  should 
act  so  toward  us,  and  point  their  guns  toward  any  or  either  of  our 
towns  or  cities,  could  any  thing  be  done  more  calculated  to  warm 
the  blood  of  the  nation,  or  more  effectually  "  to  prepare  the  hearts 
of  our  people  for  war  ?"  Would  we  permit  England  or  France  to 
do  so  toward  us,  or  could  we  do  so  toward  them  without  being 
involved  in  a  war  ?  Did  Mr.  Jefferson  act  in  this  way  when  Lou 
isiana  was  acquired  ?  The  western  boundary  of  that  country  was 
then  in  dispute  between  us  and  Spain.  Did  Mr.  Jefferson  send  an 
army  of  occupation  to  take  possession  of  the  part  in  dispute,  or 
did  he  wait  for  peaceful  negotiation  to  settle  it  ? 

How  was  it  with  our  north-eastern  boundary,  another  case  in 
point  ?  For  half  a  century  and  upward,  the  line  there  was  in  dis 
pute  between  us  and  Great  Britain,  and  a  large  extent  of  territory 
was  claimed  by  each.  Did  any  of  our  Presidents,  in  that  long 
interval  of  time,  think  it  necessary  or  proper  to  send  an  army  of 
occupation  to  take  possession  of  the  disputed  section  ?  So  far  as 


SPEECH   ON   THE    MEXICAN  WAR.  311 

necessity  was  concerned,  the  argument  was  much  stronger  in  the 
northeast  than  it  was  upon  the  Rio  Grande,  for  there  were  people 
there  claiming  the  protection  of  our  laws.  But  not  only  this,  sir ; 
if  I  am  not  mistaken,  for  some  time,  and  even  during  Mr.  Yan 
Buren's  administration,  a  portion  of  that  disputed  country  was 
permitted  to  be  occupied  by  British  troops  without  opposition  or 
resistance  on  our  part.  I  do  not  say0  that  that  was  right ;  but  it 
shows  the  great  caution  exercised  by  former  Presidents,  when  the 
questions  and  issues  of  peace  and  war  were  at  stake,  and  it  would 
have  been  time  enough,  at  least,  for  our  troops  to  have  made  a 
movement  when  Mexican  forces  had  attempted  to  seize  upon  the 
country.  I  venture  to  say,  if  a  te'nth  part  of  the  prudence,  and 
caution,  and  propriety,  had  been  exercised  in  the  southwest  that 
was  in  the  northeast,  there  would  have  been  no  collision  with 
Mexico ;  and  if  a  tenth  part  of  the  folly  and  blunders  of  this 
administration  in  the  southwest  had  been  committed  in  the 
northeast,  when  that  question  was  open,  a  rupture  with  England 
would  have  been  inevitable ;  and  we  might  to-day,  for  that  small 
strip  of  territory,  with  an  exhausted  treasury  and  accumulated 
debt,  be  waging  an  unfinished  war  with  that  country. 

And  I  shall  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  though  not  exactly  pertinent 
to  the  question  I  am  discussing,  take  occasion  to  refer  to  that 
great  statesman,  through  whose  extraordinary  talents  and  ability 
that  long  protracted  and  much  vexed  question  was  so  advan 
tageously  to  his  country  finally  settled.  And  I  do  it  from  what  I 
feel  to  be  a  sense  of  public  duty  to  a  man  who  rendered  such  essen 
tial  service  to  his  country,  in  such  a  critical  period  in  the  history 
of  our  foreign  affairs.  And  the  more  cheerfully  and  willingly  I 
do  it  in  consequence  of  the  many  gross  and  foul  imputations  that 
have  been  attempted  to  be  cast  upon  his  character  for  his  course 
in  that  matter.  So  far  from  being  a  fit  subject  for  attack  and 
detraction  for  his  conduct  in  relation  to  that  measure,  he  is  enti 
tled  to  the  gratitude  of  the  nation  and  the  gratitude  of  mankind. 
If  a  man,  who  has  the  requisite  ability  and  patriotism  for  so  noble 
an  achievement,  is  to  be  denounced  for  having  brought  to  an  hon 
orable  and  peaceful  settlement  a  question  of  so  much  difficulty  as 
to  have  baffled  the  powers  of  the  ablest  men  of  this  country  for 
fifty  years  or  upward — for  doing  what  all  our  Presidents,  from 
the  days  of  Washington  down,  had  failed  to  accomplish — for 
saving  this  country  from  all  the  consequences  of  a  protracted  war, 
the  loss  of  blood  and  treasure  that  would  have  been  spent  therein 
— for  saving  mankind  and  the  civilized  world  from  all  the  fearful 
and  disastrous  effects  that  would  have  been  produced  by  the  shock 
and  collision  of  the  two  mightiest  nations  on  earth,  brought  in 
battle  array  and  deadly  conflict  against  each,  other.  I  say.  if,  for 
doing  all  this,  a  man  is  to  be  denounced,  assailed,  and  despoiled 
of  his  good  name,  then,  indeed — 

"  Worth  is  but  a  charter 
To  be  mankind's  distinguished  martyr." 


312  SPEECH   ON   THE    MEXICAN  WAK. 

And  then,  indeed,  may  it  be  truly  said  that  "  Republics  are  un 
grateful."  But,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  this  of  my  countrymen  ;  I 
rely  more  upon  their  intelligence,  their  virtue,  wisdom,  and 
patriotism — more  upon  that  liberal,  high-minded,  generous,  and 
magnanimous  spirit  by  which  they  are  characterized.  There 
may  be  some  who,  with  the  wish  but  without  the  ability  to  take 
the  lead  in  the  arduous  ascent  of  fame's  proud  steep,  would  fain 
attain  their  ends  by  pulling  down  those  above  them,  rather  than 
encounter  the  labor  and  toil  of  honorable  though  hopeless  com 
petition  ;  but  I  trust  their  number  is  few.  They  belong  to  that 
class  of  old — 

"  Who  have  no  base  to  bear  their  rising  fame 
But  the  fallen  ruins  of  another's  name." 

In  this  instance,  however,  their  object  is  beyond  their  reach.  In 
solitary  loneliness  he  stands  high  above  them  all — with  full  con 
sciousness,  perhaps,  of  the  truth  of  what  was  said  long  since  by 
one  well  acquainted  with  the  passions  and  vices  of  the  human 
heart,  that — 

"  He  who  ascends  to  mountain  tops  shall  find 

The  loftiest  peaks  most  wrapt  in  clouds  and  snow, 
And  he  who  transcends  or  excels  mankind 
Must  look  down  on  the  hate  of  those  below." 

There  is  a  majesty  in  true  greatness  which  seldom  fails  to  com 
mand  the  admiration  of  the  high-minded  and  honorable,  while  it 
as  naturally  excites  the  envy  of  the  ignoble,  the  grovelling,  and 
the  mean  :  just  as  there  is  a  majesty  in  virtue  which  secures  the 
love  and  respect  of  the  good,  but  never  fails  to  arouse  the  hate 
of  the  vile.  This  is  the  fate  of  genius,  and  this  is  the  price  of 
renown  ;  for — 

"  Envy  will  merit  as  its  shade  pursue, 
But,  as  the  shadow  proves  its  substance  true, 
Envied  worth,  like  th'  sun  eclips'd,  makes  known 

_  The  opposing  object's  grossness,  not  its  own  : 
And  when  that  sun  too  powerful  beams  displays 
He  draws  up  vapors  that  obscure  his  rays : 
But  e'n  those  clouds  at  last  adorn  his  way, 
Reflect  new  glories  and  augment  the  day" 

So,  sir,  it  is  with  Daniel  Webster.  The  efforts  of  his  enemies 
have  been  as  impotent  as  they  were  reckless,  and  their  attempted 
aspersions  will  but  add  new  lustre  to  his  fame.  I  do  not  claim 
to  be  his  defender  or  his  eulogist ;  that  is  a  distinction  I  do  not 
aspire  to.  But  we  all  have  reason  to  be  proud  of  him  as  an 
American.  He  has  not  only  won  immortality  for  himself,  and 
taken  a  position  amongst  the  greatest  of  the  earth,  but  added 
greatly  to  the  reputation  of  his  country ;  and,  in  the  bright  con 
stellation  of  gems  and  honors  that  encircle  and  adorn  his  brow, 
shines  not  least  conspicuously,  in  my  opinion,  the  glory  of  hav 
ing  effected  the  treaty  of  Washington.  Would  for  the  country's 


SPEECH   ON  THE   MEXICAN  WAR.  313 

sake  he  filled  the  same  place  now  that  he  did  then — we  might  not 
be  in  our  present  embarrassment ! 

But,  sir,  to  return  from  this  digression,  for  which  I  hope  the 
committee  will  excuse  me. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  movement  of  our  arm}7  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  the  immediate  occasion  of  hostilities,  was  un 
necessary  and  improper,  under  the  circumstances.  I  come  now 
to  say,  what  I  fearlessly  assert,  that  the  President  had  no  right, 
no  power,  legally,  to  order  the  military  occupation  of  the  dis 
puted  territory  on  the  Rio  Grande  without  authority  from  Con 
gress.  He  had  no  right  or  power  to  send  the  army  beyond  that 
country  over  which  Texas  had  established  her  jurisdiction.  The 
boundary  between  Texas  and  Mexico — I  mean  Texas  as  an  in 
dependent  State  after  her  revolution — was  never  settled.  Before 
the  revolution  the  river  Nueces  was  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
department  of  Texas.  Between  that  river  and  the  Rio  Grande 
lay  the  districts  of  Tamaulipas,  Coahuila,  and  others.  During 
and  after  the  revolution,  a  portion  of  this  country  on  the  south 
of  the  Nueces,  about  Corpus  Christi,  went  with  Texas  and  ad 
hered  to  the  new  government ;  the  other  portion,  lying  on  the 
Rio  Grande,  adhered  to  the  old  government ;  and  though  Texas, 
after  her  declaration,  defined  her  boundary  to  be  the  Rio  Grande, 
yet  she  never  successfully  established  her  jurisdiction  to  that  ex 
tent.  Between  Corpus  Christi  and  the  Mexican  settlements  on 
the  Rio  Grande  is  an  immense  desert  or  waste,  where  nobody 
lives.  The  first  settlements  to  the  south  of  that  unoccupied  region 
are  on  the  Rio  Grande,  or  near  it,  and  have  continued  subject  to 
the  laws  of  Mexico.  The  people  are  Mexicans  or  Spaniards.  In 
proof  of  this  I  need  but  refer  to  a  letter  from  the  American  camp, 
published  in  most  of  our  newspapers,  and  which  nobody,  I  pre 
sume,  will  venture  to  contradict.  The  letter  bears  date  the  21st 
of  April  last,  and,  speaking  of  the  country  on  the  Rio  Grande, 
says :  "  The  people  are  all  Spaniards,  and  the  country  is  unin 
habitable,  excepting  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  that  con 
tains  a  pretty  dense  population ;  and  in  no  part  of  the  country 
are  the  people  more  loyal  to  the  Mexican  Government."  This 
country,  it  is  true,  is  claimed  by  Texas  and  Mexico.  It  is  in  dis 
pute,  and  was  well  known  to  be  so  at  the  time  of  annexation. 
For  proof  of  this,  I  refer  to  Senator  Benton's  speech  in  the  other 
House  upon  the  Tyler  treaty,  in  which  he  seems  to  decide  the 
claim  in  favor  of  Mexico ;  for  a  resolution  offered  by  him  on  that 
occasion  is  in  these  words : 

Resolved,  That  the  incorporation  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte 
into  the  American  Union,  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  with  Texas,  comprehend 
ing,  as  the  said  incorporation  would  do,  a  part  of  the  Mexican  departments 
of  New  Mexico,  Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  and  Tamaulipas,  would  be  an  act 
of  direct  aggression  on  Mexico,  for  all  the  consequences  of  which  the 
United  States  Would  stand  responsible. 

One  of  the  strong  objections  to  the  Tyler  treaty  was  that  it 


314  SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 

fixed  the  boundary  at  the  Rio  Grande,  which  the  resolutions  that 
finally  passed  did  not  do. 

I  refer,  also,  to  the  speech  of  Senator  Ashley,  of  Arkansas,  on 
the  resolution  itself,  in  which  he  says,  speaking  of  the  resolutions 
submitted  by  himself  for  that  purpose : 

"  The  third  speaks  for  itself,  and  enables  the  United  States  to  settle  the 
boundary  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States  properly.  And  I  will 
here  add  that  the  present  boundaries  of  Texas,  I  learn  from  Judge  Ellis, 
the  President  of  the  Convention  that  formed  the  constitution  of  Texas, 
and  also  a  member  of  the  first  Legislature  under  that  constitution,  were 
fixed  as  they  now  are  [that  is,  extending  to  the  Rio  Grande]  solely  and 
professedly  with  a  view  of  having  a  large  margin  in  the  negotiation  with 
Mexico,  and  not  with  the  expectation  of  retaining  them  as  they  now  exist 
in  their  statute  book." 

Again :  Mr.  Donelson,  our  Charge  to  Texas,  or  the  agent  sent 
on  to  effect  annexation,  in  a  communication  on  the  23d  of  June, 
1845,  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  upon  this  subject,  speaking  of  the  coun 
try  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande,  says  :  "  That  coun 
try,  you  are  aware,  has  been  in  the  possession  of  both  parties. 
Texas  has  held  in  peace  Corpus  Christi ;  Mexico  has  held  Santi 
ago  [near  Point  Isabel] ;  both  parties  have  had  occasional 
"possession  of  Loredo  and  other  places  higher  up." 

But  it  is  useless  to  multiply  authority  upon  this  point.  All 
this  was  well  known  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  resolution 
of  annexation  ;  and  hence  the  resolution  was  guarded  so  as  to  cover 
only  so  much  territory  as  was  "properly  included  within,  and 
rightfully  belonged  to  the  Republic  of  Texas,"  reserving  the  ques 
tion  of  boundary  to  be  settled  and  adjusted  between  this  govern 
ment  and  Mexico  by  negotiation,  and  not  by  arms  ;  and  Congress 
positively  refused  to  pass  any  measure  of  that  sort  which  fixed 
the  boundary  at  the  Rio  Grande  or  Del  Norte ;  and  I  venture  to 
say  that  no  resolution  so  fixing  the  boundarj"  could  have  passed 
this  or  the  other  House.  And  now  what  I  have  got  to  say  is 
this  :  Congress  having  failed  to  establish  a  boundary  in  that  quar 
ter,  the  President  could  not  undertake  to  do  it.  The  limits  or  boun 
daries  of  a  country  can  be  fixed  in  two  ways  only :  one  is  by  nego 
tiation,  and  the  other  is  by  the  sword.  The  President  by  him 
self  can  do  neither.  He  maj7  make  the  initiative  in  the  former 
case ;  but  Congress  can  alone  constitutionally  draw  the  sword 
for  any  purpose.  I  grant,  if  Mexico  would  not  negotiate,  would 
not  treat,  would  not  come  to  any  understanding  in  a  friendly 
manner  where>  the  dividing  line  should  be,  where  their  jurisdic 
tion  should  end  and  ours  commence,  that  we  would  then  have 
a  right  to  make  a  limit  for  ourselves,  and  a  right,  by  force  of  arms, 
to  establish  that  limit  or  line.  But,  sir,  this  is  a  right  that  Con 
gress  only  can  constitutionally  exercise.  The  President  can 
not  do  it.  That  is  what  I  assert ;  and  I  defy  any  man  in  this 
House  to  gainsay  my  positions.  Is  there  any  boundary  line 
established  between  Texas  and  Mexico  ?  Every  body  must  say 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN  WAR.  315 

— no.  Was  it  not  expressly  omitted  to  establish  a  line  in  the 
resolutions  of  annexation?  Everybody  must  say — yes.  Can 
the  President,  then,  undertake  to  say  where  the  line  is  or  shall 
be,  when  Congress  fails  to  speak  ? 

[Here  Mr.  PAYNE  interrupted  Mr.  S.,  and  wished  to  inquire 
whether  Texas  could  not  fix,  and  had  not  fixed  her  boundary  at 
the  Del  Norte  ?] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  proceeded.  No,  sir.  She  had  the  right,  if  she 
had  the  power,  before  annexation ;  but  by  the  resolutions  of 
annexation  that  question  was  expressly  reserved  for  this  govern 
ment  to  adjust  by  negotiation  ;  and,  by  assenting  to  these  resolu 
tions,  she  consented  to  their  conditions.  There  is,  then,  cer 
tainly  no  fixed  boundary  between  us  and  Mexico,  and  no  boun 
dary  can  be  established  but  by  negotiation  or  arms.  Congress 
alone  was  the  competent  authority  and  power  to  resort  to  the 
latter  method.  Wiry,  sir,  the  President,  at  the  opening  of  this 
session,  informed  us  that  he  considered  our  title  to  the  whole  of 
the  Oregon  Territory  up  to  54°  40'  as  "  clear  and  unquestionable." 
Suppose  he  had  ordered  the  troops  there  to  take  possession— 
had  an  army  of  occupation  sent  over  there — and  in  this  wa}r  had 
brought  on  a  war  with  England  without  ever  consulting  Congress, 
though  we  were  here  in  session,  is  there  a  man  here  who  could 
have  the  face  to  stand  up  and  defend  him  ?  Would  not  a  voice 
of  rebuke,  indignation,  and  condemnation  rise  upon  him  from 
every  quarter  of  this  country  ?  And  why  should  not  the  same 
be  the  case  in  the  present  instance  ?  The  principles  are  perfectly 
analogous.  As  to  the  matter  of  Oregon,  however,  I  believe  we 
are  in  no  danger  from  that  score  now.  Notwithstanding  our 
title  was  proclaimed  to  be  so  "  clear  and  unquestionable,"  a  large 
portion  of  it,  it  is  said,  is  about  to  be  given  up,  and  a  permanent 
line  fixed  upon  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude.  This  is  to  be  done 
by  advisement  with  the  Senate.  I,  sir,  have  no  particular  com 
plaint  to*  make  against  the  arrangement.  I  leave  it  for  the  pecu 
liar  friends  of  the  executive  to  reconcile  his  present  position 
with  the  position  he  held  at  the  opening  of  this  session.  As  for 
his  taking  the  advice  of  the  Senate  in  advance,  that  is  but  a  cover 
of  his  retreat.  All  I  have  to  say  in  reference  to  it  is,  that  I  re 
gret  that  he  was  not  equally  cautious  and  conscientious  in  tak 
ing  the  advisement  of  Congress  before  taking  military  occupation 
of  a  disputed  territory  in  another  quarter.  If  so,  we  might  now 
be  at  peace  with  Mexico,  and  all  our  differences  honorably  ad 
justed.  But  some  one  asks  me  what  was  the  President  to  do  ? 
How  was  he  to  know  where  to  stop,  as  there  was  no  fixed  line  ? 
I  answer,  his  duty  was  a  plain  one.  It  was  to  keep  the  army 
within  that  portion  of  the  territory  which  "  rightfully  belonged 
to  Texas,"  or  over  which  she  had  established  her  jurisdiction 
and  supremacy,  where  her  laws  extended  and  were  enforced,  and 
where  the  people  acknowledged  her  government.  Whether  that 
was  east  or  west  of  the  Nueces  made  no  difference.  But  he  had 


316  SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   WAR. 

no  authority  to  order  them  beyond  such  limits.  This  is  a  plain 
principle,  and  is  clearly  set  forth  in  Mr.  Donelson's  letter  to  Mr. 
Buchanan  of  the  llth  July,  1845.  When  writing  from  Texas 
upon  this  subject,  he  says  : 

"  SIR  :  You  will  have  observed  that  in  my  correspondence  with  this 
government  and  Texas,  there  has  been  no  discussion  of  the  question  of 
limits  between  Mexico  and  Texas.  The  joint  resolution  of  our  Congress 
left  the  question  an  open  one,  and  the  preliminary  proposition  made  by 
this  government,  under  the  auspices  of  the  British  and  French  Govern 
ments,  as  the  basis  of  a  definitive  treaty  with  Mexico,  left  the  question  in 
the  same  State."  "  I  at  once  decided  that  we  should  take  no  such  posi 
tion,  [on  the  Rio  Grande,]  but  should  regard  only  as  within  the  limits  of 
our  protection  that  portion  of  territory  actually  possessed  by  Texas,  and 
which  she  did  not  consider  as  subject  to  negotiation." 

This,  sir,  was  right.  This  is  what  Texas  expected,  and  this  is 
all  that  she  or  her  citizens  ever  asked.  This  was  also  in  sub 
stance  embodied  in  the  order  from  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the 
30th  July,  1845,  to  General  Taylor,  in  which  he  said,  speaking  of 
the  views  of  the  President  upon  this  subject: 

"  He  has  not  the  requisite  information  in  regard  to  the  country  to  ena 
ble  him  to  give  any  positive  directions  as  to  the  position  yoii  ought  to 
take,  or  the  movements  which  it  may  be  expedient  to  make.  These  must 
be  governed  by  circumstances.  While  avoiding,  as  you  have  been  in 
structed  to  do,  all  aggressive  measures  toward  Mexico,  as  long  as  the  re 
lations  of  peace  exist  between  that  Republic  and  the  United  States,  you 
are  expected  to  occupy,  protect,  and  defend  the  territory  of  Texas  to  the 
extent  that  it  has  been  occupied  by  the  people  of  Texas." 

With  this  view  it  was  perfectly  proper  for  the  army  to  be  sta 
tioned  at  Corpus  Christi,  while  it  was  highly  improper  to  send 
it  further  south.  And  with  this  view  it  was  perfectly  proper  for 
this  House  to  establish  a  custom-house  at  the  same  place,  leav 
ing  the  Mexicans  with  theirs  at  Santiago  and  Santa  Fe.  until  the 
boundary  should  be  settled. 

Gentlemen  have  argued  this  question  as  if  the  fact  of  its  being 
right  for  the  army  to  be  at  Corpus  Christi,  on  the  west  of  the 
Nueces,  therefore  it  must  be  right  for  it  to  go  to  any  other  place 
this  side  the  Rio  Grande.  The  President  seems  to  take  the  same 
view  in  his  special  message  upon  the  Mexican  hostilities.  Noth 
ing  could  be  more  erroneous.  And  had  the  principles  of  the 
order  of  the  30th  July  been  adhered  to — had  the  army  kept 
within  the  limits  therein  prescribed,  we  should  not  now  be  at 
war  with  Mexico. 

I  have,  in  this  argument,  Mr.  Chairman,  intentionally  abstained 
from  arguing  the  question  of  Texan  boundary — that  is,  the  precise 
limits  to  which  she  had  rightfully  established  her  jurisdiction  and 
independence,  or  where  the  dividing  line  between  us  and  Mexico 
ought  by  negotiation  to  be  fixed.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
merits  of  this  question.  My  object  was  to  show  that  our  boundary 
in  that  direction  is  as  yet  unsettled,  and  that  the  Rio  Grande 


SPEECH    ON   THE   MEXICAN  WAR.  317 

was  not  declared  to  be  the  boundary  in  the  resolution  of  annexa 
tion.  I  might  go  further,  and  show  that  it  never  was  expected 
to  be  by  some,  even  at  the  time  of  annexation,  and  by  some  of  its 
warmest  friends.  Mr.  C.  J.  INGERSOLL,  who  introduced  the 
resolution  of  annexation,  upon  this  subject,  said  upon  that 
occasion  : 

"  The  stupendous  deserts  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Bravo  [the  Rio 
Grande  or  del  Norte]  rivers  are  the  natural  boundaries  between  the 
Anglo-Saxon  and  the  Mauritanian  races.  There  ends  the  valley  of  the 
west.  There  Mexico  begins.  Thence,  beyond  the  Bravo,  begin  the 
Moorish  people  and  their  Indian  associates,  to  whom  Mexico  properly 
belongs,  who  should  not  cross  that  vast  desert  if  they  could,  as  on  our 
side  we  too  ought  to  stop  there,  because  interminable  conflicts  must 
ensue  from  either  our  going  south  or  their  coming  north  of  that  gigantic 
boundary.  While  peace  is  cherished,  that  boundary  will  be  sacred.  Not 
till  the  spirit  of  conquest  rages  will  the  people  on  either  side  molest  or 
mix  with  each  other  ;  and,  whenever  they  do,  one  or  the  other  race  must 
be  conquered,  if  not  extinguished." 

From  this  it  would  seem  that  he  did  not  even  wish  the 
boundary  ever  to  extend  to  the  Rio  Grande.  With  him,  how 
ever,  I  may  say,  I  did  not  then,  nor  do  I  now  agree ;  and,  so  far 
as  my  opinion  is  concerned,  I  think  the  Kio  Grande  ought  to  be 
the  boundary,  because  it  is  a  great  natural  boundary,  much 
better  defined  than  her  stupendous  deserts.  But  I  think,  with 
wisdom  and  prudence  in  our  councils,  the  Rio  Grande  could 
have  been  got  as  the  boundary  as  well  by  negotiation  as  by  arms, 
and  with  much  less  treasure  and  with  a  much  less  "  blood}1" 
achievement." 

And,  having  shown  the  origin  of  the  war,  and  the  executive 
blunder  connected  with  it,  I  now  come  to  say  something  of  its 
objects,  and  the  spirit  with  which  it  should  be  prosecuted. 

This  is  the  second  branch  of  the  subject  I  promised  to  notice. 
What  is  to  be  the  conduct  of  this  war — its  ultimate  aims  ?  What 
are  its  proposed  ends,  what  is  to  be  its  consummation,  and  what 
course  should  be  pursued  toward  it  ?  I  notice  a  very  evident 
wish  on  the  part  of  those  who  defend  the  President  for  getting 
us  into  it  to  put  those  who  do  not  approve  of  his  course  in  a  false 
position.  They  wish  to  make  it  appear  that  we  are  opposed  to 
the  war — opposed  to  giving  supplies — opposed  to  its  prosecution. 
This  is  not  my  position ;  I  am  opposed  to  the  manner  in  which  it 
has  been  brought  about,  but  I  am  not  opposed  to  its  active 
prosecution  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  termination ;  and  I  do  not 
intend  for  others  to  assign  me  a  position  which  I  do  not  occupy. 
I  would  not  do  a  thing  to  check  the  ardor  of  our  gallant  army, 
which  has  already  won  such  unfading  laurels  on  the  battle-field, 
or  of  the  patriotic  volunteers  who  have  rushed  to  the  rescue  at 
the  hour  of  their  country's  call.  Their  duty  and  our  duty  is  a 
very  different  thing,  under  present  circumstances,  from  what  was 
the  President's  duty  before  the  commencement  of  hostilities.  I 
am  for  the  honor  of  our  arms  while  the  conflict  lasts  j  for  energetic, 


818  SPEECH   ON  THE   MEXICAN  WAR. 

vigorous  action,  until  an  honorable  peace  can  be  obtained.  And 
whatever  of  means  or  money  shall  be  necessary  for  this,  I  am  for 
giving,  to  the  largest  extent ;  not  failing,  at  the  same  time,  to 
hold  the  executive  responsible  for  his  errors.  My  course  and 
feelings  are  just  as  they  would  be  if  this  Capitol  were  on  fire. 
The  cause  or  origin  of  the*  flames,  whether  by  accident  or  negli 
gence,  or  the  hand  of  an  enemy,  would  have  no  influence  with  me 
in  the  course  I  should  pursue  in  effecting  their  speediest  ex 
tinguishment,  and  using  all  available  and  proper  means  for  that 
purpose.  All  hands  to  the  rescue  would  be  my  motto.  And  so, 
sir,  now  the  fires  of  war  are  raging  on  our  frontier,  all  good 
citizens  should  render  their  willing  aid,  as  I  most  cheerfully  do, 
to  put  out  the  conflagration ;  and  he  whose  deeds  are  most 
gallant  and  efficient  in  effecting  this  object,  whether  on  the  field 
or  in  the  cabinet,  will  be  entitled  to  the  most  glory. 

But,  sir,  I  wish  to  know  what  is  the  design  and  object  of  the 
administration  as  to  the  ends  of  this  war.  It  has  been  brought 
upon  us  while  Congress  was  in  session  without  our  knowledge. 
And  I  wish  to  know  for  what  object,  and  with  what  spirit,  they 
intend  to  prosecute  it.  I  regret  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs  is  not  in  his  seat  to  answer  such  inquiries 
upon  this  subject  as  I  intended  to  propound  to  him.  For, 
occupying  his  position,  I  presume  he  must  be  in  the  confidence 
of  the  executive.  And  I  hope,  at  some  early  day,  he,  or  some 
other  person  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  the  "  powers  that 
be,"  will  inform  the  country  upon  this  subject.  Is  the  object  to 
repel  invasion,  to  protect  Texas,  to  establish  the  Rio  Grande  as 
the  boundary  ?  or  what  other  objects  are  had  in  view  ?  I,  sir,  not 
only  as  a  representative  upon  this  floor,  but  as  a  citizen  of  this 
republic,  having  a  common  interest  with  others,  in  every  thing 
that  pertains  to  her  interests,  her  rights,  and  her  honor,  wish  to 
know  if  this  is  to  be  a  war  for  conquest  ?  And  whether  this  is  the 
object  for  which  it  is  to  be  waged  ?  If  so,  I  protest  against  that 
part  of  it.  I  would  shed  no  unnecessary  blood  ;  commit  no  un 
necessary  violence ;  allow  no  outrage  upon  the  religion  of 
Mexico ;  have  no  desecration  of  temples,  or  "  revelling  in  the 
halls  of  the  Montezumas ;"  but  be  ready  to  meet  the  first  offers 
of  peace.  I  regret  that  General  Taylor  did  not  have  the 
authority  to  accept  the  proffered  armistice  when  it  was  tendered. 
In  a  word,  I  am  for  a  restoration  of  peace  as  soon — yes,  at  the 
earliest  day  it  can  be  honorably  effected.  I  am  no  enemy  to  the 
extension  of  our  domain,  or  the  enlargement  of  the  boundaries 
of  the  republic.  Far  from  it.  I  trust  the  day  is  coming,  and 
not  far  distant,  when  the  whole  continent  will  be  ours ;  when  our 
institutions  shall  be  diffused  and  cherished,  and  republican 
government  felt  and  enjoyed  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
and  width  of  this  land — from  the  far  south  to  the  extreme  north, 
and  from  ocean  to  ocean.  That  this  is  our  iiltimate  destiny,  if 
wise  councils  prevail,  I  confidently  believe.  But  it  is  not  to  be 


SPEECH   ON  THE   MEXICAN  WAK.  319 

accomplished  by  the  sword.  Mr.  Chairman,  republics  never 
spread  by  arms.  We  can  only  properly  enlarge  by  voluntary 
accessions,  and  should  only  attempt  to  act  upon  our  neighbors 
by  setting  them  a  good  example.  In  this  way  only  is  the  spirit 
of  our  institutions  to  be  diffused  as  the  "  leaven,"  until  "  the 
•whole  lump  is  leavened."  This  has  been  the  history  of  our  silent 
but  rapid  progress,  thus  far.  In  this  way  Louisiana,  with  its 
immense  domain,  was  acquired.  In  this  way  the  Floridas  were 
obtained.  In  this  way  we  got  Oregon,  connecting  us  with  the 
Pacific.  In  this  way  Texas,  up  to  the  Rio  Grande,  might  have 
been  added ;  and  in  this  way  the  Californias,  and  Mexico  herself 
in  due  time  may  be  merged  in  one  great  republic.  There  is  much 
said  in  this  country  of  the  party  of  progress.  I  profess  to 
belong  to  that  party  ;  but  am  far  from  advocating  that  kind  of 
progress  which  many  of  those  who  seem  anxious  to  appropriate 
the  term  exclusively  to  themselves  are  using  their  utmost  exer 
tions  to  push  forward.  Theirs,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  downward 
progress.  It  is  a  progress  of  party — of  excitement — of  lust  of 
power — a  spirit  of  war — aggression — violence  and  licentiousness. 
It  is  a  progress  which,  if  indulged  in,  would  soon  sweep  over  all 
law — all  order — and  the  constitution  itself.  It  is  the  progress 
of  the  French  revolution,  when  men's  passions — 

"  Like  an  ocean  bursting  from  its  bounds, 
Long  beat  in  vain,  went  forth  resistlessly, 
Bearing  the  stamp  and  designation  then 
Of  popular  fury,  anarchy." 

It  is  the  progress  of  that  political  and  moral  sirocco  that 
passed  over  the  republics  of  "  olden  time,"  withering  and  blast 
ing  every  thing  within  its  pernicious  and  destructive  range. 
Where  liberty  once  was  enjoyed — where  the  arts  and  sciences 
were  cultivated — and  literature  flourished — philosophers  taught 
and  poets  sung — and  where  the  most  majestic  monuments  of 
refinement,  taste,  and  genius  were  erected,  "  towers,  temples, 
palaces,  and  sepulchres  ;"  but  where  now — 

"  Kuin  itself  stands  still  for  lack  of  work, 
And  desolation  keeps  unbroken  sabbath." 

Or,  to  come  nearer  home  for  an  illustration,  it  is  the  progress  of 
Mexico  herself.  Why  is  that  heaven-favored  country  now  so 
weak  and  impotent  and  faithless  ?  Why  so  divided  and  dis 
tracted  and  torn  to  pieces  in  her  internal  policy  ?  A  few  years 
ago  she  set  out  in  the  career  of  republicanism  under  auspices 
quite  as  favorable  for  success  as  this  courtry.  Her  progress  has 
been  most  rapid  from  a  well-regulated,  good  government,  formed 
on  our  own  model,  to  the  most  odious  military  despotism.  We 
would  do  well  to  take  a  lesson  from  her  history,  and  grow  wise 
by  the  calamities  of  others,  without  paying  ourselves  the  melan- 


320      SP.EECH    ON   THE   MEXICAN   APPROPKIATION    BILL. 

choly  price  of  wisdom.  They  lacked  that  high  order  of  moral 
and  political  integrity  without  which  no  republic  can  stand.  And 
it  is  to  progress  in  these  essential  attributes  of  national  great 
ness  I  would  look  ;  the  improvement  of  mind  ;  "  the  increase  and 
diffusion  of  knowledge  amongst  men ;"  the  erection  of  schools, 
colleges,  and  temples  of  learning ;  the  progress  of  intellect  over 
matter ;  the  triumph  of  the  mind  over  the  animal  propensities  ; 
the  advancement  of  kind  feelings  and  good  will  amongst  the 
nations  of  the  earth ;  the  cultivation  of  virtue  and  the  pursuits 
of  industry ;  the  bringing  into  subjection  and  subserviency  to 
the  use  of  man  of  all  the  elements  of  nature  about  and  around 
us ;  in  a  word,  the  progress  of  civilization  and  every  thing  that 
elevates,  ennobles,  and  dignifies  man.  This,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
not  to  be  done  by  wars,  whether  foreign  or  domestic.  Fields  of 
blood  and  carnage  may  make  men  brave  and  heroic,  but  seldom 
tend  to  make  nations  either  good,  virtuous,  or  great. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  MEXICAN  APPROPRIATION,  OR 
"THREE  MILLION  BILL,"  IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 
WHOLE  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  UNION. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  FEBRUARY  12,  1847. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  :  It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact,  or 
to  affect  to  be  blind  to  the  truth,  that  this  country  is  now  sur 
rounded  by  difficulties  of  no  ordinary  magnitude,  and  fast  ap 
proaching  others  which  threaten  to  be  far  greater  and  more  peril 
ous  than  any  which  have  ever  been  encountered  since  the  founda 
tion  of  the  government. 

It  is  true,  the  declaration  was  made  the  other  day,  by  a  distin 
guished  Senator,  (Mr.  CASS,)  in  his  place,  that  he  saw  no  dangers 
about,  he  espied  nothing  in  the  prospect  to  cause  alarm  or  appre 
hension,  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  "  the  sentinel  upon  the  watch- 
tower  might  sing  upon  his  post!" 

Sir,  whether  this  sentiment  was  expressed  by  authority,  and  is 
to  be  taken  as  the  exponent  of  the  feelings  of  those  who  are  now 
wielding  so  recklessly  the  destinies  of  the  nation,  I  know  not ;  but 
to  me  it  seems  somewhat  kindred  to,  if  not  the  legitimate  offspring 
of,  that  spirit  which  prompted  Nero  to  indulge  in  music  and 
dancing  when  Rome  was  in  flames  ! 

It  strikes  me,  that  if  the  question  was  put  to  the  faithful  and 
vigilant  watchman,  at  tlis  time,  "What  of  the  night?"  he  would 
be  far  from  answering,  that  it  is  a  fit  time  for  revelry  and  song. 
He  would  say,  it  is  a  night  of  storms  and  tempests — of  gloomy 
and  appalling  darkness,  with  no  light  to  cheer  the  heart,  and  no 
star  to  guide  a  hope ;  nay,  more,  he  would  say,  it  is  a  night  in 


SPEECH   OX   THE    MEXICAN  APPKOPBIATION   BILL.        321 

which  many  of  the  public  sentinels  have  abandoned  their  posts — . 
that  they  have  failed  to  sound  the  alarm,  and  that  the  enemy  has 
not  only  entered  the  city,  but  has  seized  the  citadel  of  liberty,  and 
is  fast  battering  down  the  constitution  itself. 

The  country,  which  one  year  ago  was  quiet  and  prosperous,  at 
peace  with  the  world,  and  smiling  under  the  profusion  of  heaven's 
bountiful  munificence,  by  the  sole  and  unauthorized  act  of  the 
President,  has  been  plunged  into  an  unnecessary  and  expensive 
war,  the  end  and  fearful  consequences  of  which  no  man  can  fore 
see.  And  to  suppress  inquiry,  and  silence  all  opposition  to  con 
duct  so  monstrous,  an  executive  ukase  has  been  sent  forth, 
strongly  intimating,  if  not  clearly  threatening,  the  charge  of  treason, 
against  all  who  may  dare  to  call  in  question  the  wisdom  or  pro 
priety  of  his  measures.  Not  only  was  Congress,  which  possesses 
exclusively  the  war-making  power,  never  consulted  upon  the  subject 
until  after  hostilities  were  commenced,  but  the  right  is  even  now 
denied  that  body  to  make  any  legislative  expression  of  the  national 
will  as  to  the  aims  and  objects  for  which  the  war  should  be  prose 
cuted.  The  new  and  strange  doctrine  is  now  put  forth  that  Con 
gress  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  conduct  of  war ;  that  the  Presi 
dent  is  entitled  to  its  uncontrolled  management ;  that  we  can  do 
nothing  but  vote  men  and  money,  to  whatever  amount  and  extent 
his  folly  and  caprice  may  dictate.  Neighboring  states  may  be 
subjugated,  extensive  territories  annexed,  provincial  governments 
erected,  the  rights  of  conscience  violated,  and  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  may  be  administered  to  a  mixed  popu 
lation,  embracing  all  varieties  of  races,  languages,  and  color,  and 
the  representatives  of  the  people  are  to  say  nothing  against  these 
extraordinary  outrages  against  the  first  principles  of  their  govern 
ment,  or  render  themselves  obnoxious  to  the  imputation  of  giving 
"  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy."  This  is  nothing  less  than  the 
assumption  of  the  principle  that  patriotism  consists  in  pliant  sub 
serviency  to  executive  will — that  the  President  is  supreme,  and  the 
"  King  can  do  no  wrong." 

Sir,  this  doctrince  might  suit  the  despotisms  of  Europe,  where 
the  subjects  of  a  crown  know  no  duty  but  to  obey,  and  have  no 
rights  but  to  submit  to  royal  dictation.  But  it  is  to  be  seen 
1  whether  the  free  people  of  this  country  have  so  soon  forgotten  the 
principles  of  their  ancestors  as  to  be  so  easily  awed  by  the  arro 
gance  of  power.  It  is  to  be  seen  whether  they  have  so  far  lost  the 
spirit  of  their  sires,  as  tamely,  quietly,  and  silently  to  permit  them 
selves  to  be  treated  as  the  humble  vassals  of  such  a  self-constituted 
lordling. 

Insolence,  when  indulged,  not  unfrequently  overdoes  itself  by 
its  own  extravagance.  Like  Ambition,  it  often  "  overleaps  "  its 
aims.  And  my  confidence  in  the  character,  integrity,  and  patriot- 
ism  of  the  American  people  warrants  me  in  venturing  the  assertion, 
that  this  will  be  the  fate  of  this  most  unscrupulous  attempt  to 
abridge  the  free  exercise  of  those  rights  which  "  are  dear  to  free- 
21 


322        SPEECH    ON    THE    MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

men,  and  formidable  to  tyrants  only."  For  a  very  little  further 
interference  with  the  freedom  of  discussion,  Charles  X.,  of  France, 
lost  his  throne ;  and,  for  a  very  little  greater  stretch  of  royal  pre 
rogative,  Charles  I.,  of  England,  lost  his  head.  By  reflecting  upon 
these  examples  of  the  past,  our  executive,  without  entertaining 
any  fears  or  apprehensions  of  experiencing  a  fate  exactly  similar 
to  either,  may  yet  learn  some  profitable  les&ons — lessons  that  will 
teach  him  that  there  are  some  things  more  to  be  dreaded  than  the 
loss  of  a  throne,  or  even  the  loss  of  a  head — amongst  which  may 
be  named  the  anathema  of  a  nation's  curse,  and  the  infamy  that 
usually  follows  it. 

Moralists  tell  us  that  nations  as  well  as  individuals  are  some 
times  punished  for  their  follies  and  crimes.  It  may  be  that  there 
is  in  store  for  us  some  terrible  retribution  for  the  fraud,  and  de 
ception,  and  gross  iniquity  practised  upon  the  people  of  this 
country  in  the  election  of  this  man  to  office.  But  if,  in  the  inscru 
table  ways  of  Providence,  he,  who  has  been  thus  fraudulently 
elevated  to  power,  should  be  the  ill-fated  instrument  of  our  chas 
tisement,  the  punishment  may  be  just,  but  he  will  take  no  honor 
in  its  execution.  If  the  result  of  his  mischievous  councils  should, 
in  any  way,  prove  disastrous  to  our  institutions — the  stability, 
harmony,  and  permanency  of  the  government — which  there  is 
now  abundant  cause  seriously  to  apprehend,  he  will  certainly  have 
no  place  in  the  grateful  remembrance  of  mankind.  Fame  he  will 
have ;  but  it  will  be  of  the  character  of  that  which  perpetuates  the 
name  of  Erostratus.  And  the  more  deeply  blackened  than  even 
his,  as  the  stately  structure  of  this  temple  of  our  liberties  is  grander 
and  more  majestic  than  the  far-famed  magnificence  of  the  Ephesian 
dome. 

The  crisis,  sir,  requires  not  only  firmness  of  principle,  but 
boldness  of  speech.  As  the  immortal  Tully  said,  in  the  days  of 
Catiline,  when  Rome  was  threatened  with  the  most  imminent 
dangers,  the  time  has  come  when  the  opinion  of  men  should  not 
be  uttered  by  their  voices  only,  but  "  inscriptem  sit  in  fronte 
unius  cujusque  quid  de  Eepublica  sentit" — it  should  even  be 
written  upon  the  forehead  of  each  one  what  he  thinks  of  the  He- 
public — there  should  be  no  concealment.  In  what  I  have  to  say, 
therefore,  I  shall  use  that  character  of  speech  which  I  think  befit 
ting  the  time  and  occasion. 

The  absorbing  topic,  both  in  this  House  and  the  country,  is 
the  war  with  Mexico.  This  is  the  subject  which,  above  all  others, 
demands  our  consideration.  To  this  the  bill  upon  your  table 
relates.  And  upon  it  I  propose  to  submit  some  views  as  briefly 
as  possible.  I  do  not,  at  this  time,  intend  to  discuss  the  causes 
of  the  war,  or  to  recount  the  blunders  and  folty  of  the  President, 
connected  with  its  origin.  This  I  have  done  upon  a  former  occa 
sion  ;  and  all  the  facts,  I  believe,  are  now  well  understood  by  the 
country.  The  President  may  repeat,  as  often  as  he  pleases,  that 
it  was  "unavoidably  forced  upon  us."  But  such  repetition  can 


SPEECH    ON   THE    MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION    BILL.        323 

never  change  the  fact.  It  is  a  war  of  his  own  making,  and  in 
violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  country.  And  so  history, 
I  doubt  not,  will  make  up  the  record,  if  truth  be  fairly  and 
faithfully  registered  in  her  chronicles. 

But,  sir,  the  war  exists,  and  however  improperly,  unwisely,  or 
wickedly  it  was  commenced,  it  must  be  brought  to  a  termination, 
a  speedy  and  successful  termination.  By  the  unskilfulness  or 
faithlessness  of  our  pilot,  we  have  been  run  upon  the  breakers  ; 
and  the  only  practical  inquiry  now  is,  how  we  can  be  extricated 
in  the  shortest  time,  and  with  the  greatest  safety.  This  is  the 
grave  question  which  now  engages  public  attention,  and  which, 
as  patriots  and  statesmen,  we  ought  to  decide.  And,  in  my 
opinion,  this  great  question,  relating  as  it  does  to  the  interest, 
the  honor,  and  permanent  welfare  of  the  country,  necessarily 
involves  another  of  no  small  import  and  importance,  and  that  is, 
for  what  objects  should  the  war  be  waged  ?  Before  the  ways  and 
means  can  be  devised  for  bringing  it  to  an  honorable  conclusion, 
there  must  be  some  agreement  as  to  the  ultimate  ends  and  pur 
poses  for  which  it  should  be  prosecuted.  This  should  be  first 
settled.  No  system  should  be  adopted  until  there  is  a  distinct 
understanding  upon  this  great  and  essential  point.  All  wars,  to 
be  just,  must  have  some  distinct  and  legitimate  objects  to  be 
accomplished — some  rights  to  be  defended  and  secured,  or  some 
wrong  to  be  redressed.  And  one  of  the  strangest  and  most 
singular  circumstances  attending  this  war  is,  that  though  it  has 
lasted  upwards  of  eight  months,  at  a  cost  of  many  millions  of 
dollars,  and  the  sacrifice  of  many  valuable  lives,  both  in  battle 
and  by  the  diseases  of  the  camp,  no  man  can  tell  for  what  object 
it  is  prosecuted.  And  it  is  to  be  doubted  whether  any  man,  save 
the  President  and  Ms  Cabinet,  knows  the  real  and  secret  designs 
that  provoked  its  existence.  Upon  these  points  up  to  this  time, 
as  was  remarked  the  other  day  by  a  distinguished  senator  in  the 
other  end  of  the  Capitol,  (Mr.  CALHOUN,)  we  are  left  "only  to 
inference."  This,  sir,  is  a  strange  spectacle,  but  it  is  neverthe 
less  true.  And  I  submit  it  to  this  House  and  this  country, 
whether  it  shall  be  permitted  longer  to  exist  ?  When  the  people 
are  called  on  to  spend  their  treasure  and  blood,  should  they  not 
know  the  reason  of  the  call  and  the  ends  proposed  to  be  attained  ? 
In  1812,  before  a  resort  to  arms  was  had  against  Great  Britain, 
the  subject  was  maturely  considered  for  weeks  and  for  months, 
and  a  public  manifesto  of  our  wrongs  was  given  to  the  world  in 
justification  of  the  righteousness  of  our  cause.  The  grievances 
and  oppressions  that  led  to  the  war  of  the  Revolution  were  em 
bodied  and  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which 
will  remain  forever,  not  only  an  unanswerable  vindication  of  the 
course  of  our  fathers,  but  an  enduring  monument  of  the  wisdom 
and  patriotism  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 

But,  sir,  where  now  is  your  declaration  or  manifesto  ?  It  is 
true  that  the  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  gave  us  a 


324        SPEECH   ON   THE    MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

long  list  of  Mexican  aggressions  upon  the  commerce  and  trade 
of  our  citizens,  running  back  to  a  date  anterior  even  to  that  of 
the  existence  of  that  nation  as  a  separate  and  independent  politi 
cal  body.  But  this  was  done,  everybod}^  knows,  more  in  an 
attempt  to  justify  himself  for  a  violation  of  law,  than  to  take  the 
consultation  or  advice  of  Congress.  JPor  he  knew,  though  he 
failed  so  to  say,  that  these  spoliations,  however  wrongful,  had 
been  duly  acknowledged,  and  had  been  settled  by  treaty.  The 
amende  honorable  had  been  made,  so  far  as  national  honor  was 
concerned.  They  had  been  merged  in  a  debt  by  acknowledg 
ment,  and  payment  had  been  promised.  It  is  certainly  now  too 
late  to  go  beyond  our  own  treaty,  solemnly  ratified,  to  find 
causes  to  justify  the  present  quarrel.  It  is  useless  to  tell  the 
Country  now  what  Gen.  Jackson  and  others  said  in  1836,  '38,  and 
'39,  and  the  recommendation  of  war  then  made;  for  everybody 
knows  that  since  that  time  these  differences  have  been  adjusted 
by  negotiation. 

It  is  true  Mexico  failed  to  pay  the  instalments  as  they  became 
due,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  stipulations  of  1843,  and  I 
admit  that  this  would  have  been  a  proper  subject  for  the  Presi 
dent  to  have  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  if  he 
had  chosen,  for  them  to  have  taken  such  a  course  as  they  might 
have  thought  most  advisable.  But,  I  am  far  from  saying,  and  I 
take  this  occasion  to  assert  it,  that  if  he  had  so  done,  that  I 
should  have  been  for  declaring  war  on  that  account.  The  amount 
was  but  about  two  millions  and  a  half.  And,  it  is  admitted  on 
all  hands,  that  the  failure  to  pay  arose  solely  from  inability. 
Mexico  had  done  all  in  her  power  to  meet  her  engagements. 
She  had  even  resorted  to  the  extreme  expedient  of  forced  loans 
to  raise  the  money.  Sir,  I  am  no  advocate  of  that  relic  of  bar 
barism  which  justified  vengeance  against  the  persons  of  those 
who,  by  misfortune  or  otherwise,  were  unable  to  meet  their  obli 
gations.  The  spirit  of  this  age  has  tended  greatly  and  wisely  to 
relax  the  rigor  of  the  laws,  so  far  as  debtor  and  creditor  is  con 
cerned.  It  may  now  be  a  man's  misfortune  not  to  be  able  to 
meet  the  conditions  of  his  bond,  but  it  is  no  longer  a  crime. 
And  I  see  no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not  be 
applied  to  nations  as  well  as  individuals.  Certainly  we  have  too 
many  illustrious  examples  amongst  ourselves,  not  only  of  default, 
but  open  repudiation,  to  be  foremost  in  establishing  this  princi 
ple  of  coercion.  How  many  of  the  States  of  this  Union  set  the 
example  which  Mexico  but  too  closely  followed  ?  If  arms  are 
to  be  resorted  to  compel  the  payment  of  debts,  what  would 
become  of  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Michigan,  Mississippi,  Indiana, 
and  Arkansas,  to  say  nothing  of  Texas  ?  Arkansas  owes  you, 
sir,  half  a  million  of  dollars  herself.  The  Smithsonian  fund,  which 
was  received  by  this  government,  was  to  that  amount  vested  in 
her  bonds,  and  we  are  bound  for  it.  This  is  one  fifth  of  what 
Mexico  owes.  Yet  Arkansas  is  unable  to  pay  even  the  interest 


SPEECH    ON   THE    MEXICAN    APPROPRIATION    BILL.        825 

But  who  here  would  rise  and  recommend  war  against  her  because 
of  her  inability?  I  mention  these  States  from  no  feelings  of 
unkindness  to  them.  Some  of  them,  which  for  a  time  suspended, 
have  already  commenced  payment.  They  all  would,  doubtless, 
pay  if  they  could.  And  I  can  but  believe  that  the  day  will  come 
when  this  stain,  if  gentlemen  will  have  it  so,  will  be  attached  to 
no  State  in  the  Union.  But,  sir,  I  should  not  have  been  in  favor 
of  presenting  to  the  world  the  shameless  spectacle  of  going  to 
war  to  make  other  people  comply  with  their  engagements,  when 
we  have  so  many  instances  of  default  amongst  ourselves.  Again, 
sir,  it  would  have  come,  I  fancy,  with  a  very  bad  grace  from  this 
administration  to  recommend  war  against  Mexico  for  the  collec 
tion  of  a  stipulated  indemnity  for  her  spoliations  on  the  com 
merce  of  one  of  our  citizens,  so  long  as  the  French  affair  remains 
unadjusted.  If  our  honor,  which  gentlemen  now  seem  to  regard 
so  tenderly,  is  involved  in  this  matter,  why  have  they  slept  so 
long  over  the  wrongs  of  France,  committed  near  half  a  century 
ago  ?  That  spoliations,  to  the  amount  of  at  least  five  millions, 
were  made  by  that  government  against  the  property  of  citizens 
of  this,  no  one  denies.  It  is  believed  by  some  that  these  claims 
were  assumed  by  this  government.  If  so,  why  have  they  not 
been  paid  ?  Why  did  the  President,  who  would  make  us  believe 
that  he  looked  so  anxiously  after  such  matters,  veto  the  bill 
which  passed,  at  the  last  session  to  render  that  justice  which  had 
been  so  long  deferred  ?  Was  it  upon  the  grounds  that  this  gov 
ernment  had  never  assumed  the  debt  ?  Well,  then,  why  should  we 
not  now  compel  France  to  render  the  proper  indemnity  ?  Is  she 
less  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  offering  an  insult  to  our  flag  than 
Mexico  ?  And  where  is  the  justification,  the  consistency,  or 
honor,  of  the  policy  that  would  resort  to  war  to  compel  the  pay 
ment  of  two  millions  and  a  half  from  a  weak  people,  unable  to 
pay,  when  five  millions  have  been  suffered  to  remain  unadjusted 
so  long  by  a  nation  abundantly  able,  and  who  would  be  a  "  foe 
worthy  our  steel  ?" 

But  I  intended,  however,  upon  this  point,  barely  to  say  that,  if 
this  subject  of  claims  against  Mexico  had  been  submitted  to  Con 
gress  by  the  President,  with  a  recommendation  of  war  for  their 
enforcement,  I  should  have  voted  against  it.  But,  sir,  this  House 
knows,  and  the  world  know^s,  that  these  claims  were  not  the  cause 
of  this  war.  And,  though  they  must  be  looked  to  and  provided 
for  in  the  settlement  of  the  present  controversy,  yet  this  results 
rather  as  a  necessary  incident  of  the  war,  "than  from  their  being 
in  any  way  one  of  its  primary  objects. 

And  I  again  propound  the  question,  for  what  object  or  objects 
ought  the  war  to  be  prosecuted  ?  This  is  the  returning,  the  im 
portant,  and  the  leading  question.  It  overrides  all  others ;  and 
upon  its  determination  my  position  depends.  If  the  end  aimed  at 
be  the  settlement  of  the  matters  of  difference  between  the  two 
countries  honorably,  I  am  for  as  "  vigorous  a  prosecution  of  the 


826        SPEECH    ON    THE   MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

war"  for  these  objects  as  any  one  ought  to  be.  And  whatever 
may  be  necessary  to  sustain  the  honor  of  the  country,  so  long  as 
the  conflict  lasts,  shall  not  be  withheld  by  my  vote.  But  if  it  is 
to  be  a  war  of  aggression  and  conquest  I  am  opposed  to  it,  utterly 
and  unconditionally.  And  it  was  to  test  the  sense  of  the  House 
upon  this  subject  I  submitted  some  resolutions  a  few  days  ago, 
which  are  in  the  recollection  of  all.  Those  resolutions  have  been 
assailed  and  denounced  with  a  spirit,  in  my  opinion,  displaying 
more  of  partizan  zeal  than  due  deliberation  for  the  best  interest 
of  the  country.  It  is  not  my  object  now  to  enter  at  large  into 
their  explanation  or  defence.  I  will  barely  say,  that  they  had  no 
reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  war.  They  involved  neither  the 
disgrace  of  retreat,  nor  the  committal  of  any  one  upon  the  ques 
tion  of  whether  defensive  or  offensive  operations  would  be  the 
better  policy.  Whether  a  line  of  military  posts  should  now  be 
established  and  defended,  until  our  enemy  shall  get  in  a  humor  to 
treat ;  or  whether  the  most  desolating  invasion  should  be  pushed 
forward,  as  one  gentleman  has  argued : 

"  Even  until 

The  gates  of  mercy  shall  be  all  shut  up, 
And  the  flesh'd  soldier,  rough,  and  hard  of  heart, 
In  liberty  of  bloody  hand  shall  range, 
With  conscience  wide  as  hell,  mowing  like  grass, 
Their  fresh,  fair  virgins  and  blooming  youth." 

[Here  Mr.  TIBBATTS  rose  and  said,  he  supposed  the  gentleman 
referred  to  him  ;  but  he  did  not  mean  by  the  quotation  he  used  to 
indicate  the  spirit  with  which  the  war  should  be  prosecuted.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued.  Sir,  I  am  glad  to  hear  the  disclaimer. 
I  understood  the  gentleman  so  to  argue.  And  without  expressing 
any  opinion  upon  the  system  of  operations  to  be  adopted,  I  will 
take  occasion  to  say,  that  I  hope  never  to  see  the  fame  and  char 
acter  of  this  country  tarnished  by  such  a  policy  as  that. 

But  the  resolutions  I  allude  to  involved  none  of  these  questions. 
They  looked  simply  to  a  clear  and  specific  declaration  of  the 
objects  aimed  at,  with  a  disavowal  of  the  intention  of  permanent 
conquests. 

Am  I  asked  what  good  can  result  from  such  an  expression  by 
Congress  ?  I  answer,  much.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  due  to 
Mexico  to  let  her  know  distinctly  what  we  want.  At  this  time 
there  is  nothing  that  so  excites,  unites,  and  animates  her  people 
as  the  instincts  of  national  existence.  They  look  upon  the  war, 
not  as  one  resulting  from  a  dispute  about  an  unsettled  boundary, 
but  a  war  of  religion  and  races.  The  motto  with  them  is,  "Ser,  6 
no  ser ;"  "  To  be,  or  not  to  be,"  is  their  watchword.  They  are 
fighting  for  the  integrity  of  their  country ;  their  homes,  their  fire 
sides,  and  their  altars.  Let  them  know  that  you  aim  at  no  such 
objects ;  that  peace  is  what  you  want — an  honorable  peace,  and 
nothing  more ;  and  you  will  do  more  to  effect  it,  than  you  will 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL.        327 

do  by  storming  a  hundred  fortified  towns,  or  capturing  as  many 
armies. 

But  in  the  second  place  it  is  due  to  ourselves.  For  although 
the  President  has  said  more  than  once  that  he  is  desirous  of  ob 
taining  "  an  honorable  peace,"  and  that  "  the  war  is  not  waged 
with  a  view  to  conquest,"  yet  I  suppose  that  no  friend  of  his  on 
this  floor  will  even  venture  to  presume  that  anybody  at  all  con 
versant  with  the  unparalleled  duplicity  by  which  his  whole  ad 
ministration  has  been  eminently  distinguished,  would  be  willing 
to  do  him  so  great  injustice  as  to  say  that  he  believes  him. 
Actions  are  often  more  to  be  relied  on  than  words.  And  every 
act  of  his  in  relation  to  our  affairs  with  Mexico,  even  before 
the  commencement  of  hostilities,  as  well  as  since,  displays  his 
policy  too  clearly  to  be  mistaken.  What  other  construction  can 
be  put  upon  his  order  to  our  naval  officers  in  the  Pacific  in  the 
summer  of  1845,  long  before  the  rupture  occurred,  which  he 
seems  then  to  have  been  devising.  What  other  language  does  the 
order  to  Col.  Stevenson  speak?  Here  it  is  ;  let  all  men  judge  for 
themselves : 

WAR  DEPARTMENT,  June  26,  1846. 

SIR  :  The  President  having  determined  to  send  a  regiment  of  volunteers 
around  Cape  Horn  to  the  Pacific,  to  be  employed  in  prosecuting1  hostilities 
to  some  province  of  Mexico,  probably  in  Upper  California,  has  authorized 
me  to  say,  that  if  you  will  organize  one  on  the  conditions  hereinafter  spe 
cified,  and  tender  its  services,  it  would  be  accepted.  It  is  proper  it  should 
be  done  with  the  consent  of  the  Governor  of  New  York.  The  President 
expects,  and,  indeed,  requires,  that  great  care  should  be  taken  to  have  it 
composed  of  suitable  persons — I  mean  of  good  habits — as  far  as  practi 
cable,  of  various  pursuits,  and  such  as  would  be  likely  to  remain,  at  the 
end  of  the  war,  either  in  Oregon,  or  in  any  other  territory  in  that  region 
of  the  globe  which  may  then  be  a  part  of  the  United  States.  The  act  of  the 
13th'  May  last,  authorizes  the  acceptance  of  volunteers  for  twelve  months, 
or  during  the  war  with  Mexico.  The  condition  of  the  acceptance,  in  this 
case,  must  be  a  tender  of  service  during  the  Avar  ;  and  it  must  be  explicitly 
understood  that  they  may  be  discharged,  without  a  claim  for  returning 
home,  wherever  they  may  be  serving  at  the  termination  of  the  war,  pro 
vided  it  is  in  the  THEN  territory  of  the  United  States,  or  may  be  taken  to 
the  nearest  or  most  convenient  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
and  there  discharged. 

The  men  must  be  apprized  that  their  term  of  service  is  for  the  war ; 
that  they  are  to  be  discharged  as  above  specified  ;  and  that  they  are  to  be 
employed  on  a  distant  service.  It  is,  however,  very  desirable  that  it  should 
not  be  publicly  known  or  proclaimed  that  they  are  to  go  to  any  particular 
place.  On  this  point,  great  caution  is  enjoined. 

The  communication  to  the  officers  and  men  must  go  so  far  as  to  remove 
all  just  grounds  of  complaint  that  they  have  been  deceived  in  the  nature 
and  the  place  of  the  service. 

It  is  expected  that  the  regiment  will  be  in  readiness  to  embark  as  early 
as  the  1st  of  August  next,  if  practicable.  Steps  will  be  immediately 
taken  to  provide  for  transportation. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  L.  MAKCY,  Secretary  of  War. 

Colonel  J.  D.  STEVENSON,  New  York  city. 


328        SPEECH   ON   THE    MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

Does  not  this  show  some  "  view"  to  conquest — some  idea  of 
having  some  territory  in  some  distant  region  of  the  globe,  which 
was  not  ours  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  ?  What  other  meanings 
have  the  provincial  governments  established  in  California  and  New 
Mexico  ?  Hear  the  proclamation  of  Commodore  Stockton,  made, 
if  not  in  obedience  to  orders,  at  least  without  objection  or  rebuke : 

"  I,  Robert  Stockton,  Commander-in-chief  of  the  United  States  forces 
in  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  Governor  of  the  Territory  of  California,  and 
command er-in-chief  of  the  army  of  the  same,  do  hereby  make  Jcnoivn  to 
all  men,  that  having,  by  right  of  conquest,  taken  possession  of  that  ter 
ritory,  known  by  the  name  of  Upper  and  Lower  California,  1  do  now 
declare  it  to  be  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  the 
Territory  of  California." 

Again ;  hear  the  proclamation  of  General  Kearny : 

"The  United  States  hereby  absolves  all  persons  residing  within  the 
boundaries  of  New  Mexico  from  any  further  allegiance  to  the  Republic 
of  Mexico,  and  hereby  claims  them  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
Those  who  remain  quiet  and  peaceable,  will  be  considered  good  citizens, 
and  receive  protection ;  those  who  are  found  in  arms,  or  instigating  others 
against  the  United  States,  will  be  considered  as  traitors,  and  treated 
accordingly." 

Does  not  this  look  like  conquest  in  its  fullest  accomplishment — 
the  subjugation  of  the  people,  and  the  change  of  their  allegiance? 
To  what  else  could  the  President  have  referred  in  his  last  annual 
message,  when  he  congratulated  the  country  upon  "  the  vast  extent 
of  our  territorial  limits  ?" 

Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  evidence  is  overwhelming.  What 
other  object  has  the  bill  upon  your  table,  and  what  is  all  this  de 
bate  about  the  "  Wilmot  proviso,"  but  a  quarrel  in  advance  about 
the  partition  of  territory,  and  the  division  of  spoils  intended  to 
be  wrested  from  Mexico.  Sir,  do  gentlemen,  or  the  President, 
suppose  that,  after  the  success  of  the  trick  of  the  "  Kane  letter," 
the  people  of  this  country  are  such  absolute  dupes  as  to  be  im 
posed  upon  by  such  jugglery  as  this  ?  But  if  such  be  not  the 
design  of  the  President  and  his  party  in  this  House,  why  did  they 
not  so  declare  by  their  votes  ?  Why  were  those  resolutions  so 
summarily  rejected  that  sought  nothing  but  a  clear  expression  of 
the  legislative  will  upon  this  subject  ?  All  these  things  afford 
"  confirmation  strong  as  proofs  of  Holy  Writ"  that  the  President, 
his  denial  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  is  looking  to  the  dis 
memberment  of  Mexico,  and  the  subjugation  of  a  portion  of  her 
territory. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  undertake  to  say  that,  however  this  war 
was  commenced,  whether  by  an  invasion  on  the  part  of  Mexico, 
or  by  the  President,  in  assuming  to  establish  a  line  of  boundary 
by  arms,  when  he  knew  full  well  that  that  was  a  matter  unsettled 
between  the  two  governments,  its  continuance  can  be  justified 
upon  but  two  grounds  only ;  and  if  gentlemen  know  of  any  others, 
I  should  like  to  hear  them  openly  declared.  These  two  grounds 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL.       329 

relate  to  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  boundary,  which  is  the 
only  ostensible  cause  of  the  war,  and  the  payment  or  recognition 
on  the  part  of  Mexico  of  her  debt,  acknowledged  by  way  of  indem 
nity  for  the  claims  of  our  citizens.  The  first  is  the  main  one,  the 
other  secondary,  and  resulting,  as  I  have  said,  as  a  necessary 
incident  attending  a  state  of  war. 

And  when  gentlemen  speak  of  an  honorable  peace  (and  there 
are  none,  I  believe,  who  do  not  so  declare  themselves),  I  wish  to 
know  what  they  mean  by  those  terms  ?  What,  in  their  opinion, 
will  constitute  "  an  honorable  peace  ?"  I,  too,  profess  to  be  in 
favor  of  "an  honorable  peace;"  and  by  an  honorable  peace,  I 
mean  the  honorable  settlement  of  the  matters  in  dispute;  and  so 
long  as  this  object  is  had  in  view,  I  am  ready  and  willing  to  give 
all  assistance  and  means  necessary  for  its  accomplishment,  not 
only  by  voting  men  and  money,  so  long  as  any  is  left  in  the  trea 
sury,  but  even  taxation  upon  the  people,  if  it  should  come  to  that. 
But,  beyond  this,  the  attainment  of  a  peace  upon  the  terms  I  have 
mentioned,  I  shall  never  go.  And  if  gentlemen  upon  this  floor, 
or  the  President,  have  any  other  purpose  covered  under  the  terms 
of  "an  honorable  peace,"  what  is  it?  Do  they  suppose  that  the 
people  of  this  country  hold  in  such  slight  remembrance  the  prin 
ciples  upon  which  their  government  is  founded,  as  to  be  prepared 
to  sustain  a  war  waged  for  an  object  no  higher  or  nobler  than  that 
which  springs  from  an  unhoty  lust  of  dominion  and  the  spread  of 
empire  ?  Do  they  suppose  that  this  country,  which  has  not  yet 
arrived  to  the  full  vigor  of  manhood,  has  so  soon  forgotten  the 
lessons  of  its  early  instruction,  as  to  be  ready  to  enter  upon  that 
wild  career  of  military  prowess  which  has  been  the  bane  of  so 
many  nations  which  have  gone  before  us,  and  has  been  the  destruc 
tion  of  all  former  republics  ?  If  this  be  the  calculation  of  those 
who  mean  by  "  an  honorable  peace"  nothing  short  of  exacting 
from  Mexico  some  of  her  departments  or  States,  be  it  so ;  but  I 
beg  to  protest  against  it,  not  only  for  myself,  but  for  the  country 
also.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  think  I  am  mistaken  in  the  charac 
ter  or  spirit  of  the  American  people.  I  know  that  for  courage  and 
bravery  they  are  unsurpassed,  if  not  unequalled,  by  any  people  in 
the  world.  I  am  also  fully  persuaded  that  they  too  highly  appre 
ciate  the  rights  and  privileges  they  enjoy  ever  to  permit  them  to 
be  assailed  by  any  enemy,  however  strong ;  that  they  hold  in  too 
high  estimation  the  rich  inheritance  bequeathed  to  them  ever  to 
allow  it  to  be  wrested  from  them  by  any  force,  however  powerful ; 
that  they  also  too  tenderly  and  sensitively  cherish  that  high  sense 
of  honor  which  characterized  their  fathers  ever  to  permit  a  public 
injury  to  go  unredressed,  or  a  national  insult  to  pass  unatoned. 
But  I  am  far  from  believing  they  are  prepared  to  set  themselves 
up  as  the  reformers  of  the  world,  either  in  government  or  religion. 
As  they  value  their  own  institutions,  and  would  risk  every  thing, 
life,  fortune,  and  all,  in  their  defence,  so  they  respect  those  of 
others,  and  have  no  disposition  to  interfere  with  them.  Sir,  I  am 


330        SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN  APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

no  enemy  to  the  enlargement  of  our  boundaries,  when  it  can  be 
properly  done.  But  free  institutions  never  did,  and  never  will, 
enlarge  the  circuit  of  their  extent  by  force  of  arms.  The  history 
of  the  world  abounds  with  many  melancholy  examples  in  illustra 
tion  of  the  truth  of  this  position.  No  principle  is  more  dangerous 
to  us  than  that  of  compelling  other  nations  to  adopt  our  form  of 
government.  It  is  not  only  wrong  in  itself,  but  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  spirit  and  genius  of  the  liberty  we  enjoy ;  and,  if  persisted 
in,  must  inevitably  result  in  our  downfall  and  ruin.  No  instance 
is  to  be  found  upon  record  of  any  republic's  having  ever  entered 
upon  such  a  hazardous  crusade,  which  did  not  end  in  the  subver 
sion  of  its  own  liberties  and  the  ultimate  enslavement  of  its  own 
people.  And,  before  embarking  upon  so  dangerous  an  enterprise, 
I  trust  we  shall  have  some  security  and  guarantee  that  we  shall,  at 
least,  escape  the  fate  of  those  whose  examples  we  follow.  Sir,  I 
very  much  fear  that  the  people  of  this  country  are  not  sufficiently 
awake  and  alive  to  the  mischievous  and  ruinous  schemes  of  those 
to  whom  they  have  for  a  time  confided  the  management  of  public 
affairs.  Mr.  Madison  long  since  uttered  the  prophetic  warning, 
that  "  if  a  free  people  be  a  wise  people  also,  they  will  NEVEP. 
FORGET  that  the  danger  of  surprise  can  never  be  so  great  as  when 
the  advocates  of  the  prerogative  of  war  can  sheath  it  in  a  symbol 
of  peace"  And  never  in  our  history  did  the  times  so  strongly 
require  a  practical  consideration  of  this  solemn  admonition. 

But  some  gentlemen,  who  will  not  directly  avow  the  principle 
of  conquest  as  the  object  of  the  war,  yet  take  the  position  that 
territory  must  be  acquired  as  its  result,  by  way  of  indemnity  for 
what  Mexico  owes  us  and  the  expenses  of  the  war — that  she 
is  unable  to  pay  in  money,  and  territory  must  be  taken.  Now, 
sir,  I  am  equally  opposed  to  this  ;  for  how  could  any  of  the 
Mexican  territory  so  acquired  by  possibility  be  considered  an 
indemnity*!  An  indemnity  is  something  to  save  from  loss — 
something  of  pecuniary  value  ;  but  how  could  these  departments 
of  Mexico — California  and  New  Mexico,  if  you  please — converted 
into  American  territories  or  provinces,  be  of  any  such  value  to 
us  ?  Will  you  make  a  Sicily  of  one,  and  place  it  under  the 
Prsetorship  of  a  Yerres  to  exact  tribute  from  the  inhabitants,  and 
in  this  way  secure  indemnity  ;  and  make  a  Bombay  of  the  other, 
and  place  it  under  the  rule  of  a  Hastings,  who,  by  grinding 
oppression,  shall  cause  annual  streams  of  treasure  to  flow  in 
your  coffers  ?  How  else  can  this  acquisition  in  any  way  ever  be 
of  any  value  or  source  of  profit  ?  So  far  from  being  an  indem 
nity,  who  does  not  know  that  they  would  necessarily  be  the 
cause  of  largely  increased  expenditures — forts  and  fortifications 
would  have  to  be  erected — all  requiring  heavy  appropriations  of 
money,  besides  continual  expenditures  necessar}7"  to  keep  up  ter 
ritorial  governments.  And  whence  would  come  any  thing  in  the 
nature  of  reimbursements  to  meet  these  heavy  outlays,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  enormous  cost  of  their  acquisition  ?  Would  it 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL.      331 

come  from  the  sale  of  public  lands  ?  These  are  already  held  in 
fee  by  legal  proprietors,  as  is  generally  known.  How  then  can 
this  be  called  an  indemnity,  either  for  the  debt  that  Mexico  owes 
us,  or  the  expenses  of  the  war  ?  The  bonds  of  Mexico,  if  never 
paid,  would  be  a  much  better  indemnity;  for  they  would  at 
least  be  free  from  continual  expense.  Sir,  by  this  acquisition  we 
would  get  nothing  but  the  empty  right  of  jurisdiction  and 
government  over  an  unwilling  people,  unused  to  the  restraints 
of  law,  which  will  be  the  source  of  incalculable  troubles  and 
difficulties,  which  no  wisdom  can  now  foresee.  What  will  be  done 
with  the  people  themselves  ?  Are  they  to  be  made  citizens  ? 
Spaniards,  Indians,  Mestizoes,  Mulattoes,  Negroes,  and  all? 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  every  consideration  of  patriotism,  as 
well  as  sound  judgement,  requires  us  to  say  at  once  to  Mexico, 
that  we  do  not  desire  a  dismemberment  of  her  Confederacy — 
that  we  do  not  want  any  of  her  territory  acquired  in  this  way. 

Would  there  be  any  thing  disgraceful  in  making  such  a  pro 
clamation  as  this  ?  Has  it  any  thing  to  do  with  a  withdrawal  of 
our  troops,  or  the  dishonor  of  a  retreat  from  the  enemy  ? 

Mr.  Chairman,  some  gentlemen  seem  to  have  strange  notions 
of  national  disgrace  and  national  dishonor.  I  do  not  profess  to 
be  very  well  informed  in  such  matters,  but  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say,  that  according  to  my  opinion  of  national  honor,  we 
should  not  lose  half  so  much  by  a  withdrawal  of  our  army,  not 
only  to  the  Rio  Grande,  or  the  Nueces,  or  even  to  the  capital 
itself,  as  by  the  passage  of  this  bill  now  under  consideration. 
The  withdrawal  of  the  army  might  be  a  very  unwise  policy,  but 
it  could  never  be  considered  a  disgraceful  one.  We  have 
triumphantly  met  our  enemy  upon  too  many  battle-fields  for  any 
policy  we  might  adopt  to  be  subject  to  such  imputation.  The 
valor  of  our  arms,  I  trust,  will  never  be  considered  as  tarnished 
for  refusing  to  strike  a  fallen  foe.  The  victories  of  Palto  Alto, 
Resaca  cle  la  Palma,  and  Monterey  will  not  soon  be  forgotten. 
In  all  of  which  the  greatest  glory  of  the  achievement  was  the 
mercy  and  the  magnanimity  shown  to  the  vanquished.  Our 
honor,  therefore,  could  not  suffer  by  any  disposition  of  our 
arms.  But,  sir,  this  bill  proposes  to  obtain  a  victory,  not  by  the 
gallantry  and  chivalry  of  our  troops,  but  by  the  corrupting 
influence  of  money ;  the  policy  it  adopts  is  not  to  conquer  a 
peace  but  to  buy  one.  It  rests  upon  the  principle  that  national 
honor  is  a  merchantable  commodity — a  thing  to  be  bought ;  and 
I  suppose,  if  occasion  should  offer,  to  be  sold  also.  And  yet,  it 
is  advocated  by  those  who  thrust  themselves  forward  as  the 
exclusive  champions  of  the  character  and  fame  of  the  country.  I 
have  no  admiration  for  such  honor  as  this,  and  quite  as  little 
patience  with  its  advocates.  Our  fair  escutcheon  shall  never  be 
tarnished  by  such  a  blot  by  my  sanction.  I  have  as  little 
regard  for  the  honor  of  such  a  transaction,  as  I  have  use  for  ter 
ritory  so  obtained. 


332        SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN  APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

To  be  even  driven  from  the  field  after  a  manly  resistance  would 
not,  in  my  opinion,  be  so  disgraceful  as  to  sue  for  quarters  by  paying 
tribute  to  the  enemy.  For,  after  all,  the  fortunes  of  war  do  not 
always  turn  to  the  advantage  of  the  bravest,  the  most  valiant,  or 
the  most  deserving.  And  the  greatest  honor  is  often  acquired 
where  success  falls  far  short  of  being  equal  either  to  the  justice 
of  the  cause  or  the  merit  of  the  effort.  But  never  yet  have  I  heard 
of  a  nation  that  increased  the  lustre  of  its  fame  or  the  valor  of  its 
arms  by  offering  money  to  suspend  a  conflict.  Is  it  said  that  Con 
gress  made  a  similar  appropriation  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Jefferson 
when  Louisiana  was  acquired — and  to  Mr.  Monroe  when  Florida 
was  obtained  ?  Sir,  the  cases  are  not  analogous.  We  were  not 
then  at  war.  Those  acquisitions  were  made  by  purchase — fairly, 
honorably,  and  peaceably  effected.  And  with  what  face  can  those 
who  advocate  such  an  ignominious  proceeding  as  this,  which  has 
no  parallel  even  in  the  corruptest  Courts  of  Europe,  where  states 
manship  consists  in  intrigue  and  diplomacy,  charge  that  open 
declaration  of  purpose  which  I  propose,  with  involving  in  any 
degree  a  compromise  of  national  honor  ?  If  we  do  not  aim  at  the 
dismemberment  of  Mexico — if  we  do  not  desire  any  of  her  terri 
tory  as  the  result  of  this  war,  either  under  the  appellation  of  con 
quest,  or  the  more  specious  but  less  true  cognomen  of  indemnity 
is  there  any  thing  disreputable  to  our  character  in  so  declaring 
to  the  world  ?  Sir,  for  one,  I  repeat,  I  do  not  want  any  territory 
acquired  in  this  way,  nor  do  I  believe  the  people  of  this  country 
desire  it. 

And  besides  the  reasons  already  offered,  which  of  themselves 
would  ever  control  me,  there  are  others  of  great  importance, 
growing  out  of  the  nature  of  the  union  of  these  States,  which 
should  be  gravely  considered  before  bringing  in  this  new  element 
of  strife.  Who  can  sit  here  and  listen  to  the  debates  daily  upon 
this  question,  and  look  unmoved  upon  the  prospect  before  us  ? 
This  Wilmot  proviso,  and  the  resolutions  from  the  Legislatures 
of  the  States  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  all  of  the 
same  character  and  import,  speak  a  language  that  cannot  be  mis 
taken — a  language  of  warning  upon  this  subject,  and  which  the 
country,  if  wise,  would  do  well  to  heed  in  time.  They  show  a 
fixed  determination  on  the  part  of  the  North,  which  is  now  in  the 
majority  in  this  House,  and  ever  will  be  hereafter,  that,  if  terri 
tory  is  acquired,  the  institutions  of  the  South  shall  be  forever  ex 
cluded  from  its  limits  ;  this  is  to  be  the  condition  attached  to  the 
bill  upon  your. table  !  What  is  to  be  the  result  of  this  matter? 
Will  the  South  submit  to  this  restriction  ?  Will  the  North  ulti 
mately  yield  ?  Or  shall  these  two  great  sections  of  the  Union  be 
arrayed  against  each  other  ?  'When  the  elements  of  discord  are 
fully  aroused,  who  shall  direct  the  storm  ?  Who  does  not  know 
how  this  country  was  shaken  to  its  very  centre  by  the  Missouri 
agitation  ?  Should  another  such  a  scene  occur,  who  shall  be 
mighty  enough  to  prevent  the  most  disastrous  consequences  ? 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MEXICAN   APPROPRIATION   BILL.        333 

The  roaster  spirit  of  that  day  is  no  longer  in  your  councils. 
Shall  another  equally  great  and  patriotic  ever  be  found  ?  Let  not 
gentlemen  quiet  their  apprehensions  by  staving  off  this  question. 
It  has  to  be  met,  and  better  now  than  at  a  future  clay.  It  had  better 
be  decided  now,  than  after  more  blood  and  treasure  has  been 
spent  in  the  pursuit  of  that  which  may  ultimately  be  our  ruin. 
Upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  about  which  so  much  has  been  said 
in  this  debate,  I  shall  say  but  little.  I  do  not  think  it  necessary 
to  enter  into  a  defence  of  the  character  of  the  people  of  my  sec 
tion  of  the  Union,  against  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  been 
pleased  to  denounce  that  institution  as  wicked  and  sinful.  It  is 
sufficient  for  me  and  for  them  that  the  morality  of  that  institu 
tion  stands  upon  a  basis  as  firm  as  the  Bible ;  and  by  that  code 
of  morals  we  are  content  to  abide,  until  a  better  be  furnished. 
Until  Christianity  be  overthrown,  and  some  other  system  of 
ethics  be  substituted,  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  can  never 
be  regarded  as  an  offence  against  the  Divine  laws.  The  charac 
ter  of  our  people  speaks  for  itself.  And  a  more  generous,  more 
liberal,  more  charitable,  more  benevolent,  more  philanthropic,  and 
a  more  magnanimous  people,  I  venture  to  say,  are  not  to  be 
found  in  any  part  of  this  or  any  other  country.  As  to  their 
piety,  it  is  true  they  have  "  none  to  boast  of"  But  they  are  free 
from  that  pharisaical  sin  of  self-righteousness,  which  is  so  often 
displayed  elsewhere,  of  forever  thanking  the  Lord  that  they  are 
not  as  bad  as  other  men  are. 

As  a  political  institution,  I  shall  never  argue  tjie  question  of 
slavery  here.  I  plead  to  the  jurisdiction.  The  subject  belongs 
exclusively  to  the  States.  There  the  constitution  wisely  left  it ; 
and  there  Congress,  if  it  acts  wisely,  will  let  it  remain.  Whether 
the  South  will  submit  to  the  threatened  proscription,  it  is  not  my 
province  to  say.  The  language  of  defiance  should  always  be  the 
last  alternative.  But  as  I  value  this  Union,  and  all  the  blessings 
which  its  security  and  permanency  promise,  not  only  to  the 
present  but  coming  generations,  I  invoke  gentlemen  not  to  put 
this  principle  to  the  test.  I  have  great  confidence  in  the  strength 
of  the  Union,  so  long  as  sectional  feelings  and  prejudices  are 
kept  quiet  and  undisturbed — so  long  as  good  neighborhood  and 
harmony  are  preserved  amongst  the  States.  But  I  have*no  dis 
position  to  test  its  strength  by  running  against  that  rock  upon 
which  Mr.  Jefferson  predicted  we  should  be  finally  wrecked.  And 
the  signs  of  the  times,  unless  I  greatly  mistake  them,  are  not  of 
a  character  to  be  unheeded.  With  virtue,  intelligence,  and  pa 
triotism,  on  the  part  of  the  people  ;  and  integrity,  prudence, 
wisdom,  and  a  due  regard  to  all  the  great  interests  of  the  country, 
on  the  part  of  our  rulers,  a  bright  and  a  glorious  destiny  awaits 
us.  But  if  bad  counsels  prevail — if  all  the  solemn  admonitions 
of  the  present  and  the  past  are  disregarded — if  the  policy  of  the 
administration  is  to  be  carried  out — if  Mexico,  the  "  forbidden 
fruit,"  is  to  be  seized  at  every  hazard,  I  very  much  fear  that  those 


334  SPEECH    ON   THE    TERRITORIAL   BILL. 

who  control  public  affairs,  in  their  eager  pursuit  after  the  unen* 
viable  distinction  of  despoiling  a  neighboring  Republic,  will  have 
the  still  less  enviable  glory  of  looking  back  upon  the  shattered 
and  broken  fragments  of  their  own  confederacy.  And,  instead 
of  "  revelling  in  the  halls  of  Montezuma,"  or  gloating  over  the 
ruins  of  the  ancient  cities  of  the  Aztecs,  they  may  be  compelled 
to  turn  and  beholcl  in  their  rear  another  and  a  wider  prospect  of 
desolation,  carnage,  and  blood. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  asked  by  him  who  spake  as  man  never 
spake,  "  What  shall  a  man  be  profited,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world 
and  lose  his  own  sowZ?"  And  may  I  not,  with  reverence,  ask 
what  we  shall  be  profited  as  a  nation,  if  we  gain  any  part,  or  even 
the  whole  of  Mexico,  and  lose  the  Union,  the  soul  of  our  political 
existence  ?  The  Union  is  not  only  the  life,  but  the  soul  of  these 
States.  It  is  this  that  gives  them  animation,  vigor,  power,  pros 
perity,  greatness,  and  renown ;  and  from  this  alone  spring  our 
hopes  of  immorality  as  a  common  people. 


SPEECH   ON   THE    TERRITORIAL   BILL :  ["  CLAYTON 
COMPROMISE."] 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

AUGUST  7,  1848. 

The  House  having  under  consideration  the  two  Messages  of  the  Presi 
dent  in  relation  to  Peace  with  Mexico  and  the  organization  of  Territorial 
Governments  for  New  Mexico  and  California — 

Mr.  STEPHENS  obtained  the  floor,  and  said  : 

Mr.  SPEAKER:  The  messages  of  the  President  now  under 
consideration  embrace  subjects  of  grave  and  momentous  interest, 
involving  the  peace,  the  happiness,  the  prosperity  and  honor,  as 
well  as  perhaps  the  safety,  of  the  Republic.  There  are  many 
topics  alluded  to  in  these  messages  which  require  the  calm  and 
dispassionate  consideration  of  this  House,  and  also  the  mature 
and  deliberate  consideration  of  the  people  of  this  country.  So 
far  as  this  House  is  concerned,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  proper 
consideration  can  be  given  to  them  at  this  session.  The  time  is 
too  short,  even  if  the  prevailing  temper  here  was  not  unsuited, 
as  it  is,  from  the  excitement  of  a  Presidential  canvass,  to  enter 
upon  the  investigation  with  that  freedom  from  passion  and  cool 
ness  of  judgment  so  essential  for  wise  and  prudent  action.  I 
intend,  therefore,  before  taking  my  seat,  to  move  that  the  further 
consideration  of  these  messages  be  postponed  for  the  present, 
and  that  they  be  laid  on  the  table,  to  come  up  at  the  next  session 
of  Congress.  Before  making  that  motion,  however,  I  wish  to 
submit  some  views  upon  one  of  the  subjects  embraced  in  them. 


SPEECH   OX   THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL.  835 

I  wish  I  had  time  to  speak  of  all  of  them,  particularly  the  Presi 
dent's  attempted  justification  for  the  exercise  of  those  extraordi 
nary  powers  which  he  claims  as  his  legitimate  right,  as  a 
conqueror  under  the  laws  of  nations,  but  one  hour  will  not  allow 
this.  And  I  intend,  at  this  time,  to  confine  myself  to  one  topic 
only,  which  is  the  organization  of  territorial  governments  in  New 
Mexico  and  California. 

[Here  Mr.  INGE,  of  Alabama,  interrupted,  and  said  that,  from 
the  intimation  of  the  gentleman,  he  supposed  he  was  going  to 
discuss  the  slave  question  ;  and  if  so,  he  hoped  he  would  not 
close  his  speech  by  moving  to  lay  the  subject  on  the  table,  but 
would  allow  the  opportunity  for  a  reply.] 

Mr.  S.  continued  by  saying :  It  is  not  my  object,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  prevent  a  reply.  My  intention  was  only  to  save  time.  If  the 
gentleman  from  Alabama,  or  any  other  gentleman,  wishes  to  con 
tinue  this  discussion,  I,  individually,  have  no  objection,  and,  so 
far  as  the  argument  I  shall  submit  is  concerned,  I  shall  certainly 
interpose  no  obstacle  to  any  reply  that  any  gentleman  may  desire 
to  make.  I  therefore  now  notify  the  gentleman  that  I  shall  not 
make  the  motion  just  intimated. 

The  President,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  his  reply  to  the  resolutions  of 
inquiry  which  passed  this  House  some  days  ago,  calling  for  in 
formation  touching  the  character  and  form  of  government  in 
these  late  conquests,  seems  to  have  misconceived  the  object  and 
scope  of  those  resolutions ;  and,  in  his  message,  refers  only  to 
those  governments  which  were  established  by  his  own  order,  and 
which  he  says  necessarily  ceased  at  the  termination  of  the  war. 
Now,  sir,  my  object  was  not  only  to  inquire  into  that  subject,  but 
also  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  govern 
ments  which  would  necessarily  exist  there  upon  the  displacement 
or  dissolution,  of  those  which  were  temporarily,  illegally,  and 
unconstitutionally,  in  my  opinion,  set  up  by  himself.  Before  we 
can  legislate  properly  for  any  people,,  and  particularly  the  people 
of  a  conquered  province,  we  must  know  something  of  the  nature, 
character,  and  form  of  their  government,  and  something  of  the 
laws  in  existence  and  in  force  in  the  country  at  the  time  of  the 
conquest. 

The  object  and  intention  of  my  resolutions  was  to  get  some 
information  upon  this  point,  as  well  as  others.  But  upon  this  the 
answer  to  the  call  of  the  House  is  silent,  and  the  absence  of  this 
information  constitutes  of  itself  a  very  good  reason  for  opposi 
tion  to  any  legislation  by  Congress  over  these  territories,  until 
it  can  be  obtained.  But,  sir,  I  have  much  graver  reasons  than 
this  for  my  opposition  to  the  Territorial  bill  which  was  rejected 
the  other  day,  in  this  House,  on  my  motion.  It  is  my  object,  at 
this  time,  to  speak  upon  that  measure  which  some  gentlemen  are 
pleased  to  call  the  "  Compromise  bill,"  but  which  might  be  more 
properly  entitled  Articles  of  Capitulation  011  the  part  of  the 
South.  So  fa*  from  being  a  compromise,  that  bill  proposed 


336  SPEECH   ON   THE   TEKEITOEIAL   BILL. 

nothing  short  of  an  abandonment  of  the  position  of  the  South,  and 
a  surrender  of  the  just  rights  of  her  people,  to  an  equal  participa 
tion  in  the  new  acquisitions  of  territory.  The  surrender  was 
covert,  but  it  was  no  less  complete  and  absolute. 

This  I  intend  to  show.  Never  was  any  measure  more  grossly 
misnamed  or  miscalled.  It  was  no  compromise  in  any  sense  of 
the  word.  A  compromise  is  a  mutual  yielding  of  rights,  for  the 
purpose  of  adjusting  and  settling  differences  and  difficulties. 
But,  in  this  case,  there  was  no  such  mutual  concession.  The 
whole  question  was  to  be  left,  in  the  last  resort,  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  upon  whose  decision  one  party  was 
either  to  get  all  or  lose  all.  And  entertaining  not  the  slightest 
doubt  that  under  it  the  South  was  to  lose  all,  I  adopted  the 
speediest  and  most  effectual  means  of  defeating  it. 

A  gentleman  from  Virginia,  the  other  day,  [Mr.  BAYLY,] 
intimated  that  the  bill  was  laid  upon  the  table  for  party  effect 
and  for  party  purposes  ;  and  he  seemed  to  express  great  regret 
at  the  defeat  of  the  measure.  Sir,  so  far  as  the  action  of  this 
House  was  concerned,  I  can  answer  for  nobody  but  myself.  I 
undertake  to  answer  for  no  party,  no  partisan,  and  no  other  man. 
I  know  not  b}^  what  motives  others  were  actuated ;  perhaps  the 
motives  were  as  different  and  as  numerous  as  the  members  them 
selves.  But  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  I  can  tell  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia,  and  the  country,  that  I  was  goverened  by  my  own 
deliberate  judgment  upon  the  real  character  of  the  measure  ;  and 
I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  show  him  and  the  country  that  I  under 
stood  what  I  was  doing  when  I  met  that  bill  with  firm  resistance 
at  the  very  threshold  of  your  action.  It  was  in  my  opinion  just 
such  a  measure  as  no  man  in  this  House  from  any  quarter  ought 
to  have  voted  for,  and  particularly  no  man  from  the  South. 

And  this,  sir,  I  affirm,  in  the  first  place,  because,  while  it  was 
urged  as  a  compromise  and  a  settlement  of  the  agitating  ques 
tion  which  now  so  greatly  distracts  the  public  mind,  it  really 
settled  nothing,  but  opened  wide  the  door  for  greater  and  more 
alarming  excitement.  Those  gentlemen  of  the  North  who  advo 
cated  it,  claimed  it  as  a  complete  triumph  of  their  principles ; 
while  those  of  the  South,  I  suppose,  were  prepared  to  go  to  their 
constitutents,  and  tell  them  that  it  fully  secured  all  their  rights. 
Now,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  in  compromises  or  settlements  that  are 
not  fully  and  clearly  and  distinctly  understood  on  both  sides  at 
the  time. 

What  is  the  point  of  difference  now  between  the  two  great 
sections  of  the  Union?  The  North  insists  upon  the  policy  of 
excluding  the  institutions  of  the  South  from  the  whole  of  the  new 
territories,  while  the  South  contends  that  she  is,  in  justice, 
entitled  to  an  equal  share  of  whatever  country  may  be  acquired 
by  the  common  blood  and  treasure  of  all.  And  how  was  this 
difference  proposed  to  be  comprised  and  settled  ?  Simply  by  the 
adoption  of  a  measure,  upon  the  meaning  and  import  of  which 


SPEECH   ON   THE   TEEKITORIAL   BILL.  337 

leading  men  on  both  sides,  at  the  time,  differed  as  widely  as  they 
did  upon  the  main  question  itself.  So  far  from  settling  the  ques 
tion,  or  "pouring  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters,"  such  a  measure 
could  but  have  multiplied  difficulties,  increased  excitement,  and 
"  added  fuel  to  the  flame."  For  this  reason,  in  my  judgment,  the 
bill  should  have  met  favor  from  no  quarter.  The  real  question, 
the  great  issue  between  the  two  sections  of  the  country,  has  to  be 
met  sooner  or  later,  and  no  shifting  of  responsibility,  in  order  to 
get  a  postponement  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  a  Presidential 
election,  or  relieving  a  candidate  from  an  almost  universally 
condemned  position,  will  successfully  evade  it.  And  when  it  is 
met,  I  want  it  met  fairly  and  squarely. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my  object  to  show 
that,  for  far  greater  and  more  controlling  reasons,  no  southern 
man  should  have  voted  for  that  measure.  I  do  not  often  make 
sectional  appeals  upon  this  floor — never,  unless  to  repel  attacks, 
or  to  maintain  what  I  believe  to  be  right  and  just.  In  this  in- 
'stance,  I  feel  bound  to  do  so,  no  less  in  obedience  to  my  own 
inclination,  than  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  those  whose  honor  and 
interests  have  been  confided  to  my  charge.  And  that  duty  I  shall 
this  day  discharge,  faithfully  and  fearlessly,  let  the  consequences 
be  what  they  may.  That  bill,  I  repeat,  proposed  a  total  aband 
onment  and  surrender  of  the  rights  of  the  South.  Not  an  open 
abandonment,  but  a  covert  one.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  those 
gentlemen  who  favored  it,  and  who  regret  that  it  did  not  pass,  so 
considered  it.  But  such  would  have  been,  nevertheless,  its  effect. 
And  I  will  invite  the  close  attention  of  those  gentlemen  who 
differ  from  me  upon  this  subject  to  the  views  I  shall  present,  and 
the  positions  I  shall  assume.  For  I  not  only  challenge,  but  I 
defy  a  refutation  of  them. 

To  be  understood  more  clearly,  I  will  read  the  terms  of  the 
bill  itself,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  Cali 
fornia.  It  will  be  seen  that  all  legislation  by  the  territorial 
governments  "  respecting  the  prohibition  or  establishment  of 
African  slavery"  was  to  be  prohibited ;  and  all  questions  relating 
to  titles  to  slaves  there,  or  their  right  to  freedom,  was  to  be  left 
ultimately  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Here  are  the  words  of  the  bill — 

"  SEC.  26.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  legislative  power  of  said 
Territory  shall,  until  Congress  shall  otherwise  provide,  be  vested  in  the 
Governor,  Secretary,  and  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  have  power  to  pass  any  law  for  the  administration 
of  justice  in  said  Territory,  which  shall  not  be  repugnant  to  this  act,  or 
inconsistent  with  the  laws  and  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  But 
no  law  shall  be  passed  interfering  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil, 
respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  respecting  the  prohibition  or 
establishment  of  African  slavery ;  and  no  tax  shall  be  imposed  upon  the 
property  of  the  United  States ;  nor  shall  the  lands  or  other  property  of 
non-residents  be  taxed  higher  than  the  lands  or  other  property  of  resi- 

22 


338  SPEECH   OX   THE   TERRITORIAL  BILL. 

dents.     All  the  laws  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  and,  if  disapproved,  shall  be  null  and  void." 

And  in  the  31st  section,  after  providing  for  the  organization 
of  territorial  courts,  the  following  provision  is  found  : 

;'  Writs  of  error  and  appeals  from  the  final  decisions  of  said  supreme 
court  shall  be  allowed,  and  may  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  same  manner  and  under  the  same  regulations  as 
from  the  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States ;  except  only  that  in  all  cases 
involving  title  to  slaves  the  said  writs  of  error  or  appeals  shall  be  allowed 
and  decided  by  the  said  supreme  court,  without  regard  to  the  value  of  the 
matter,  property,  or  title  in  controversy  ;  and  except,  also,  that  a  writ  of 
error  or  appeals  shall  be  allowed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
from  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  created  by  this  act,  or  any  judges 
thereof,  or  of  the  district  courts  created  by  this  act,  or  of  any  judges 
thereof,  upon  any  writ  of  habeas  corpus  involving  the  question  of  per 
sonal  freedom,  etc." 

The  bill  contains  nothing  else  which  bears  materially  upon  the 
subject  of  slavery.  It  merely  prohibits  the  territorial  govern* 
ment  from  passing  any  law  upon  the  subject ;  and  leaves  the 
southern  man,  who  may  be  inclined  to  go  there  with  his  slaves, 
to  contest  his  rights  to  the  best  of  his  abilities  with  the  courts  of 
the  territory  in  the  first  instance,  and  then,  if  he  chooses,  with  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  Union. 

All  that  the  bill  does  is  to  guard  against  the  passage  of  any 
law  for  the  protection  of  the  master  ;  but  opens  wide  the  door  of 
expensive  and  almost  endless  litigation  between  him  and  his  slave, 
without  affording  him  even  the  shadow  of  a  semblance  of  a  hope 
that  his  rights,  at  the  end  of  the  law,  will  ever  be  recognized  or 
enforced. 

The  most  interesting  of  all  questions,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the 
South  upon  this  point,  is,  by  what  law  will  the  territorial  courts 
in  the  first  instance,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
in  the  last  resort,  decide  the  question  of  freedom  between 
the  master  and  slave  ?  It  is  not  the  province  of  courts,  in  their 
judicial  character,  to  make  laws ;  they  can  only  decide  upon 
laws  after  they  are  made.  And,  in  the  absence  of  legislation  by 
Congress,  and  the  territorial  governments,  upon  this  subject,  l>y 
what  law,  I  ask,  will  the  courts  decide  questions  between  the 
master  and  his  slave  in  these  territories  ?  This,  sir,  is  a  great 
and  vital  question  for  us  to  consider — not  as  partisans,  but  as 
statesmen,  and  as  legislators — before  we  refer  a  subject  of  so 
much  interest  to  their  decision.  It  is  certainly  a  matter  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  the  people  of  the  South  that  they  should 
not  be  left  in  ignorance  upon  it.  And,  so  far  as  my  ability  goes, 
they  shall  not  be. 

I  set  out,  then,  by  stating  that,  according  to  the  best,  ablest, 
and  most  approved  writers  on  public  law,  and  according  to  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  in  England  in  analogous  cases,  and 
according  to  the  repeated  decisions  of  our  own  Supreme  Court, 
to  which  this  bill  proposed  to  refer  this  matter,  (in  the  absence 


SPEECH   OX   THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL.  339 

of  such  legislation  as  I  have  alluded  to,)  the  law  by  which  the 
courts  would  decide  questions  of  slavery  there,  is  the  law  which 
was  in  force  in  New  Mexico  and  California,  upon  that  subject,  at 
the  time  of  the  conquest.  The  general  principles,  which  I  under 
stand  to  be  recognized  and  well  settled  amongst  civilized  nations 
in  modern  times,  in  relation  to  conquest,  are,  that  all  the  laws 
which  were  in  force  in  the  conquered  country  at  the  time  of  the 
conquest,  are  held  to  continue  in  force  until  altered  or  modified 
by  the  conquering  power,  except  such  as  may  be  inconsistent 
with  the  fundamental  law  of  the  conquering  power,  or  inconsis 
tent  with  some  stipulation  in  the  final  treaty,  or  such  as  were 
purely  political  in  their  character,  and  concerned  only  the  rela 
tions  between  the  people  and  their  former  sovereign  or  ruling 
power.  This  I  state  as  a  proposition  which  no  man  can  contro 
vert.  In  barbarous  times,  when  a  people  were  conquered,  they 
might,  by  the  laws  of  war,  be  put  to  the  sword,  or  be  reduced  to 
the  condition  of  slaves.  With  the  progress  of  civilization,  how 
ever,  this  principle  has  been  modified.  According  to  the  modern 
doctrine,  the  relations  of  the  people  toward  their  sovereign  or 
ruling  power,  in  whatever  form  of  government,  are  changed ;  but 
their  relations  toward  each  other  and  their  laws,  as  before  stated, 
remain  until  modified  or  altered  by  the  new  governing  power. 

Upon  this  subject  Grotius,  in  his  work,  (Book  III.,  chapter  xv., 
section  9,)  citing  the  case  of  the  Jews,  which  might,  perhaps,  be 
referred  to  from  much  higher  authority,  says  : 

"  Thus  the  government  continued  among  the  Jews  in  the  Sanhedrim, 
even  after  Archelaus  had  been  stript  of  his  kingdom,  And  Evagoras, 
King  of  Cyprus,  (as  Diodorus  relates,)  said  he  would  obey  the  King  of 
Persia,  but  that  as  one  king  did  another." 

Upon  the  text  above,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Jews,  the 
author  has  a  note  in  the  following  words : 

"  That  is  to  say,  they  judged  according  to  their  own  laws,  as  did  most 
of  the  people  dependent  upon  the  Roman  Empire.  For  the  rest,  before 
Archelaus  was  banished  to  Vienna,  the  complete  soveregnity  was  no 
longer  in  the  Jewish  nation." 

In  another  place,  Book  1,  chapter  iii.,  section  22,  note  3,  the 
same  author  says : 

"  They,  (the  Jews,)  likewise  followed  their  own  laws,  and  punislied  their 
own  delinquents,  according  to  the  customs  of  their  own  country." 

This,  however,  was  the  case  only  so  long  as  the  Romans  per 
mitted  it.  For  Josephus  expressly  observes,  "  that,  after  Jeru 
salem  was  taken  by  Romulus,  the  Jews  lost  their  liberty,  and 
became  subjects."  From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  even  in  that 
early  day,  after  the  conquest  of  their  country,  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  Jews  were  continued  until  changed  and  abrogated 
by  the  conquerors — the  Romans.  Upon  the  same  point  Yattel 
says,  in  his  work  upon  the  law  of  nations,  page  451 : 


340  SPEECH    ON    THE   TERRITORIAL    BILL.  ^1 

"A  prince  taking  a  town  or  a  province  from  his  enemy,  can  justly 
acquire  over  it  the  same  rights  only  as  belonged  to  the  sovereign  against 
whom  he  had  taken  arms.  War  authorizes  him  to  possess  himself  of 
what  belonged  to  his  enemy ;  if  he  deprives  him  of  the  sovereignty  of  a 
town  or  province,  he  acquires  it  as  it  is,  with  all  its  limitations  and  modi 
fications." 

Again,  he  says,  on  page  452 : 

"  But  at  present  war  is  less  terrible  to  the  subject ;  things  are  trans 
acted  with  more  humanity ;  it  is  against  one  sovereign  that  another 
makes  war,  and  not  against  the  quiet  subjects.  The  conqueror  lays  his 
hands  on  the  possessions  of  the  state,  on  what  belongs  to  the  public  while 
private  persons  are  permitted  to  retain  theirs.  They  suffer  but  indirectly 
by  war,  and  to  them  the  result  is,  that  they  only  change  masters." 

And,  again,  the  same  author  says,  on  page  453 : 

"  We  are  always  to  remember,  that  the  law  of  nations  permits  no  injury 
to  be  done  to  an  enemy,  unless  in  taking  measures  necessary  for  a  just 
defence,  and  a  reasonable  security.  Some  princes  have  only  imposed  a 
tribute  on  it,  others  have  been  satisfied  with  stripping  it  of  some  privi 
leges,  dismembering  a  province,  or  keeping  it  in  awe  by  fortresses  ; 
others,  as  their  quarrel  was  only  with  the  sovereign  in  person,  have  left 
a  nation  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  its  rights,  only  setting  a  sovereign 
over  it.  But  if  the  conqueror  thinks  proper  to  retain  the  sovereignty  of 
the  vanquished  state,  and  has  such  a  right,  the  manner  in  which  he  is  to 
treat  the  state  still  flows  from  the  same  principles.  If  the  sovereign  be 
only  the  just  object  of  his  complaint,  reason  declares,  that  by  his  con 
quests  he  acquires  only  such  rights  as  actually  belonged  to  the  dethroned 
sovereign  ;  and,  on  the  submission  of  his  people,  he  is  to  govern  it  accord 
ing  to  the  laws  of  the  state." 

These  authorities  sustain  the  position  I  assumed.  They  could 
be  multiplied  to  a  much  greater  extent.  But  I  said  the  same 
principles  had  been  settled  by  solemn  adjudication  in  the  English 
courts,  and  I  now  ask  the  attention  of  the  House  to  one  case  de 
cided  by  Lord  Mansfield  in  1114.  It  is  the  case  of  Campbell  vs. 
Hall,  reported  in  1st  Cowper,  205.  The  principles  involved  in 
it  are  very  analogous,  indeed,  to  many  that  may  arise  out  of  our 
late  war,  and  the  conduct  of  our  executive  in  assuming  the  power 
to  lay  and  collect  duties  in  the  Mexican  ports,  out  of  our  own 
citizens,  without  authority  of  law. 

Campbell,  the  plaintiff,  was  a  natural  born  subject  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  and  on  the  3d  of  March,  1163,  pur 
chased  a  plantation  in  the  Island  of  Granada,  which  had  been 
taken  from  the  French  l>y  the  British  arms  in  open  war  some 
time  before.  The  King,  by  virtue  of  his  royal  prerogative,  im 
posed  a  duty  of  four  and  a  half  per  cent,  upon  all  sugars  expor 
ted  from  the  Island  of  Granada.  Campbell  paid  the  duty,  and 
then  brought  an  action  against  the  collector  for  the  money.  The 
whole  doctrine  and  principle  of  conquest  as  recognized  by  the 
courts  of  Great  Britain  seem  to  have  been  discussed.  The  reporter 
says  the  case  was  elaborately  argued  four  several  times,  and  Lord 
Mansfield  finally  delivered  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  court 


SPEECH    ON    THE    TERRITORIAL    BILL. 

And  in  that  opinion  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
following  principles,  stated  on  the  208th  and  209th  pages  of  the 
1st  volume  of  Cowper's  reports  : 

"A  great  deal  has  been  said,  and  many  authorities  cited,  relative  'to 
propositions,  in  which  both  sides  seem  to  be  perfectly  agreed ;  and  which 
indeed,  are  too  clear  to  be  controverted.  The  stating  some  of  those  propo 
sitions  which  we  think  quite  clear,  will  lead  us  to  see  with  greater  per 
spicuity,  what  is  the  question  upon  the  first  point,  and  upon  what  hinge 
it  turns.  I  will  state  the  propositions  at  large,  and  the  first  is  this : 

A  country  conquered  by  the  British  arms  becomes  a  dominion  of  the 
king  in  the  right  of  his  crown ;  and,  therefore,  necessarily  subject  to  the 
legislature,  the  parliament  of  Great  Britain. 

The  2d  is,  That  the  conquered  inhabitants  once  received  under  the  king's 
protection,  become  subjects,  and  are  to  be  universally  considered  in  that 
light,  not  as  enemies  or  aliens. 

The  3d,  That  the  articles  of  capitulation  upon  which  the  country  is  sur 
rendered,  and  the  articles  of  peace  by  which  it  is  ceded,  are  sacred  and  in 
violable  according  to  their  true  intent  and  meaning. 

The  4th,  That  the  law  and  legislative  government  of  every  dominion 
equally  effects  all  persons  and  all  property  within  the  limits  thereof;  and 
is  the  rule  of  decision  for  all  questions  which  arise  there.  Whoever  pur 
chases,  lives,  or  sues  there,  puts  himself  under  the  law  of  the  place.  An 
Englishman  in  Ireland,  Minorca,  the  Isle  of  Man,  or  the  Plantations,  has 
no  privilege  distinct  from  the  natives. 

The  5th,  That  the  laws  of  a  conquered  country  continue  in  force,  until 
they  are  altered  by  the  conqueror  :  the  absurd  acception  as  to  Paganz, 
mentioned  in  Calvin's  case,  shows  the  universality  and  antiquity  of  the 
maxim.  For  that  distinction  could  not  exist  before  the  Christian  era; 
and  in  all  probability  arose  from  the  mad  enthusiasm  of  the  Croisades. 
In  the  present  case  the  capitulation  expressly  provides  and  agrees,  that 
they  shall  continue  to  be  governed  by  their  own  laws,  until  his  majesty's 
further  pleasure  be  known. 

The  6th,  and  last  proposition  is.  that  if  the  king>  (and  when  I  say  the 
king,  I  always  mean  the  king  without  the  concurrence  of  parliament,)  has 
a  power  to  alter  the  old  and  to  introduce  new  laws  in  a  conquered  country, 
this  legislation  being  subordinate,  that  is,  subordinate  to  his  own  authority 
in  parliament,  he  cannot  make  any  new  change  contrary  to  fundamental 
principles:  he  cannot  exempt  an  inhabitant  from  that  particular  domin 
ion  ;  as,  for  instance,  from  the  laws  of  trade,  or  from  the  power  of  parlia 
ment,  or  give  him  privileges  exclusive  of  his  other  subjects ;  and  so  in 
many  other  instances  which  might  be  put." 

The  fourth  and  fifth  of  these  propositions  contain  the  principles 
upon  which  I  rely.  The  fifth  contains  in  express  terms  what  I 
have  stated,  that  "  the  laws  of  a  conquered  country  continue  in 
force  until  they  are  altered  by  the  conqueror." 

Some  stress  in  this  case  seems  to  have  been  laid  on  the  terms 
of  capitulation  at  the  time  of  the  conquest.  Amongst  other  things 
it  is  said,  it  was  expressly  stimulated  "  that  Granada  should  con 
tinue  to  be  governed  by  its  present  laws  until  his  Majesty's  fur 
ther  pleasure."  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  the  case  is  identical 
with  the  conquest  of  New  Mexico  and  California.  General 
Kearny,  ill  his  proclamation  at  Santa  Fe,  on  the  22d  August, 
1846,  uses  thi<*  language  : 


042  SPEECH    ON   THE   TERRITOEIAL    BILL. 

"It  is  the  wish  and  intention  of  the  United  States  to  provide  for  New 
Mexico  a  free  government,  with  the  least  possible  delay,  similar  to  those 
in  the  United  States  ;  and  the  people  of  New  Mexico  will  then  be  called 
on  to  exercise  the  rights  of  freemen,  in  electing  their  own  representatives 
to  the  territorial  legislature.  But  until  this  can  be  done,  the  laws  hitherto 
in  existence  will  be  continued  until  changed  or  modified  by  competent  au 
thority  ;  and  those  persons  holding  office  will  continue  in  the  same  for  the 
present,  provided  they  will  consider  themselves  good  citizens,  and  are 
willing  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States." 

And  in  his  proclamation  at  Monteray,  in  California,  on  the  1st 
day  of  March,  1847,  he  uses  similar  language,  as  follows : 

"  It  is  the  desire  and  intention  of  the  United  States  to  procure  for  Cali 
fornia  as  speedily  as  possible  a  free  government  like  that  of  their  own 
territories,  and  they  will  very  soon  invite  the  inhabitants  to  exercise  the 
rights  of  free  citizens  in  the  choice  of  their  own  representatives,  who  may 
enact  such  laws  as  they  deem  best  adapted  to  their  interest  and  well-being. 
But  until  this  takes  place  the  laws  actually  in  existence,  which  are  not  re 
pugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  will  continue  in  force  un 
til  they  are  revoked  by  competent  authority  ;  and  persons  in  the  exercise 
of  public  employments  will  for  the  present  remain  in  them,  provided  they 
swear  to  maintain  the  said  Constitution,  and  faithfully  discharge  their 
duties." 

These  proclamations  were  the  terms  of  the  capitulation.  By 
the  promises  and  assurances  therein  given,  the  people  were  in 
duced  to  surrender,  and  offer  no  further  resistance  to  our  arms. 
And  according  to  the  opinion  of  Lord  Mansfield  just  read,  the 
terms  of  the  capitulation  in  each  case,  by  the  laws  of  nations, 
would  he  held  "sacred  and  inviolable  according  to  their  true 
intent  and  meaning."  But,  sir,  the  same  rule  would  apply  even 
if  there  had  been  no  such  terms  of  capitulation.  The  capitula 
tion  only  increases  the  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  general  rule 
that  the  laws  of  a  conquered  people,  with  the  exception  before 
stated,  continue  in  force  until  altered  by  the  new  governing  or 
conquering  power. 

It  remains  for  me  now  to  show  that  the  same  principle  has  been 
repeatedly  recognized  and  settled  by  our  own  Supreme  Court. 
For  this  purpose  I  refer,  first,  to  the  opinion  given  by  Chief  Jus 
tice  Marshall  in  the  case  of  the  American  Insurance  Company 
et  al.  vs.  Carter,  1st  Peters,  542.  In  this  case  that  learned  judge 
used  the  following  language : 

"  The  constitution  confers  absolutely  on  the  government  of  the  Union 
the  powers  of  making  war  and  of  making  peace  ;  consequently  that  govern 
ment  possesses  the  power  of  acquiring  territory  either  by  conquest  or  by 
treaty.  The  usage  of  the  world  is,  if  a  nation  be  not  entirely  subdued,  to 
consider  the  holding  of  conquered  territory  as  a  mere  military  occupation 
until  its  fate  shall  be  determined  at  the  treaty  of  peace.  If  it  be  ceded 
by  the  treaty,  the  acquisition  is  confirmed,  and  the  ceded  territory  be 
comes  a  part  of  the  nation  to  which  it  is  annexed  ;  either  on  the  terms 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  of  cession,  or  on  such  as  its  new  master  shall  im 
pose.  On  such  transfer  of  territory,  it  has  never  been  held  that  the  re 
lations  of  the  inhabitants  with  each  other  undergo  any  change.  Their 


SPEECH   ON   THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL.  343 

relations  with  their  former  sovereign  are  dissolved,  and  new  relations  are 
created  between  them  and  the  government  which  has  acquired  their  terri 
tory.  The  same  act  which  transfers  their  country,  transfers  the  allegi 
ance  of  those  who  remain  in  it.  And  the  law,  which  may  be  demonstra 
ted  political,  is  necessarily  changed,  although  that  which  regulates  the 
intercourse  and  general  conduct  of  individuals,  remains  in  force  until  al 
tered  by  the  newly  created  power  of  the  State." 

Again,  in  the  same  case,  page  544,  he  uses  this  language : 

"  It  has  been  already  stated,  l^hat  all  the  laws  which  were  in  force  in 
Florida,  while  a  province  of  Spain,  those  excepted  which  were  political  in 
their  character,  which  concerned  the  relations  between  the  people  and 
their  sovereign,  remained  in  force  until  altered  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States." 

In  the  same  case,  Mr.  Justice  Johnson,  of  South  Carolina,  in 
giving  his  separate  opinion,  used  the  following  language.  I  read 
from  1st  Peters'  Reports,  page  51T : 

"  The  right,  therefore,  of  acquiring  territory  is  altogether  incidental  to 
the  treaty-making  power,  and  perhaps  to  the  power  of  admitting  new 
States  into  the  Union ;  and  the  government  of  such  acquisitions  is  of 
course  left  to  the  legislative  power  of  the  Union,  as  far  as  that  power  is 
uncontrolled  by  treaty.  By  the  latter  we  acquire,  either  positively  or 
sub  modo,  and  by  the  former  dispose  of  acquisitions  so  made  ;  and  in 
case  of  such  acquisitions,  I  see  nothing  in  which  the  power  acquired  over 
the  ceded  territories  can  vary  from  the  power  acquired  under  the  law  of 
nations  by  any  other  government  over  acquired  or  ceded  territory.  The 
laws,  rights,  and  institutions  of  the  territory  so  acquired  remain  in  full 
force  until  rightfully  altered  by  the  new  government." 

Here  it  is  expressly  affirmed,  that  the  laws,  rights,  and  institu 
tions  of  the  country  so  acquired,  remain  in  force  until  rightfully 
altered  by  the  new  government. 

But,  sir,  this  principle  has  been  repeatedly  decided  by  the 
same  tribunal.  I  have  another  case  before  me,  in  12  Peters' 
Reports,  page  410,  in  which  the  same  doctrine  is  held,  and  a 
long  list  of  cases  cited  in  which  it  is  also  affirmed.  This  is  the 
case  of  Strother  vs.  Lucas — and  was  an  action  of  ejectment 
for  two  lots  of  ground  in  St.  Louis,  Missouri.  And  where  it 
became  necessary  to  review  the  laws  that  were  in  force  there  at 
the  time  of  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  Judge  Baldwin  gave 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  and  used  the  following  language : 

"  The  State  in  which  the  premises  are  situated,  was  formerly  a  part 
of  the  territory,  first  of  France,  next  of  Spain,  then  of  France,  who  ceded 
it  to  the  United  States  by  the  treaty  of  1803,  in  full  propriety,  sovereignty, 
and  dominion,  as  she  had  acquired  and  held  it,  (2  Peters,  301,  etc.,)  by 
which  this  government  put  itself  in  place  of  the  former  sovereign,  and 
became  invested  with  all  their  rights,  subject  to  their  concomitant  obliga 
tions  to  the  inhabitants.  (4  Peters,  512  ;  9  Peters,  736  ;  ..10  Peters,  330, 
335,  726,  732,  736.)  Both  were  regulated  by  the  law  of  nations,  according 
to  which  the  rights  of  property  are  protected,  even  in  the  case  of  a  con 
quered  country,  and  held  sacred  and  inviolable  when  it  is  ceded  by  treaty, 
with  or  without  any  stipulation  to  such  effect;  and  the  laws,  whether  in 
writing  or  evidenced  by  the  usage  and  customs  of  the  conquered  or  ceded 


344:  SPEECH   ON   THE   TERKITORIAL   BILL. 

country,  continue  in  force  till  altered  by  the  new  sovereign."  (8  Wheaton, 
589 ;  12  Wheaton,  528,  535 ;  6  Peters,  712  ;  7  Peters,  86,  87 ;  8  Peters, 
444.  465  ;  9  Peters,  133,  736,  747,  748,  749 ;  Cowper,  205 ;  2  Veasy,  sr., 
349;  10  Peters,  305,  330,  721,  732,  etc.) 

Here,  again,  is  a  clear  and  distinct  recognition  of  the  same 
principle  with  the  declaration  that  the  "  laws,  whether  in  writing 
or  evidenced  by  the  usage  and  custom  of  the  conquered  or  ceded 
country,  continue  in  force  till'altered  by  the  new  sovereign,"  with 
a  long  list  of  authorities  upon  the^same  point,  which  I  deem  it 
useless  to  consume  the  time  of  the  House  by  referring  to,  even 
if  my  brief  hour  would  admit.  Gentlemen  can  take  them  and 
read  them  at  their  leisure.  But  why  need  I  say  more  upon  this 
point?  Is  it  not  well  known  and  perfectly  notorious  in  this 
country  that  all  the  local  and  municipal  laws  which  were  in  force 
in  Florida  and  Louisiana,  at  the  time  of  their  acquisition,  are 
still  in  force,  except  so  far  only  as  they  have  been  altered  since  ? 
Upon  what  other  principle  is  it  that  the  civil  law  prevails  in 
Louisiana  to  this  day  ? 

And  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  such  be  the  decisions  of  our  own 
Supreme  Court  upon  this  point,  as  I  presume  no  gentleman 
upon  this  floor  will  venture  to  gainsay  or  deny,  there  is  but  one 
other  question  left,  and  that  is,  what  was  the  law  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery  in  California  or  New  Mexico  at  the  time  of  their 
conquest  ?  This  is  an  important  question.  The  whole  merits  of 
the  case  turn  upon  it.  And  upon  this  point  I  suppose  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  Slavery  was  abolished,  then,  in  1829.  I  have  before 
me  the  decree  as  it  appears  in  Niles'  Register,  vol.  37,  page  219. 

MEXICO— TOTAL  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 
"  The  President  of  the  Mexican  United  States  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 

Republic,  greeting : 

"  Desiring  to  signalize  in  the  year  1829  the  anniversary  of  our  indepen 
dence  by  an  act  of  national  justice  and  beneficence,  that  may  turn  to  the 
advancement  and  support  of  so  important  a  result ;  that  may  consolidate 
more  and  more  public  tranquility ;  that  may  co-operate  to  the  aggrandize 
ment  of  the  republic,  and  return  to  an  unfortunate  portion  of  its  inhabit 
ants  those  rights  which  they  hold  from  nature,  and  that  the  people  pro 
tect  by  wise  and  equitable  laws,  in  conformity  with  the  30th  article  of 
the  constitutive  act. 

"Making  use  of  the  extrordinary  faculties  which  have  been  granted  by 
the  Executive,  I  thus  decree  : 

"  1.  Slavery  is  forever  abolished  in  the  republic. 

"  2.  Consequently  all  those  individuals  who  until  this  day  looked  upon 
themselves  as  slaves,  are  free. 

"  When  the  financial  situation  of  the  republic  admits,  the  proprietors 
of  slaves  shall  be  indemnified,  and  the  indemnification  regulated  by  law. 

"And  in  order  that  the  present  decree  may  have  its  full  and  entire  exe 
cution,  I  order  it  to  be  printed,  published,  and  circulated  to  all  those 
whose  obligation  is  to  have  it  fulfilled. 

"  Given  in  the  Federal  Palace  of  Mexico,  on  the  15th  of  September, 
1829. 

"Signed,  "VICENTE  GUERRERO, 

"  LAURENZO  DE  ZAVALA." 


SPEECH   ON  THE   TERRITORIAL  BILL.  345 

This  decree  provided  that  the  f>wner  of  slaves  manumitted 
should  be  indemnified  when  the  financial  situation  of  the  country 
would  allow  it.  And  I  have  before  me  another  act  of  the 
Mexican  Congress  of  183T  upon  the  same  subject.  This  act  I 
find  in  volume  8  of  the  Laws  of  Mexico,  which  embraces  the  acts 
of  1836  and  1831: 

[Translation.] 
An  act  abolishing  slavery  in  the  republic. 

"ART.  1.  Slavery,  without  any  exception,  is,  and  shall  remain,  abolished 
throughout  the  entire  republic. 

"ART.  2.  The  owners  of  slaves  manumitted  by  this  act,  or  by  the  decree 
of  15th  September,  1829,  shall  be  indemnified  for  the  interest  they  held 
in  them,  which  interest  shall  be  estimated  by  duly  considering  the  per 
sonal  qualities  of  the  slaves ;  to  which  end  one  appraiser  shall  be  nomi 
nated  by  the  commissary-general  of  the  place,  or  by  the  person  who  sup 
plies  his  place ;  another  shall  be  nominated  by  the  owner ;  and  in  case  of 
discord  in  their  opinions,  a  third  shall  be  nominated  by  the  constitutional 
alcalde  of  the  vicinity,  to  which  no  objection  shall  be  interposed.  The 
decision  of  the  appraisers,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  be  absolute  and 
final.  The  indemnification  of  which  this  article  makes  mention  shall  not 
extend  in  any  respect  to  those  colonists  of  Texas  who  have  taken  an 
active  part  in  the  revolution  of  that  department. 

"ART.  3.  The  original  proceedings  in  regard  to  the  appraisement  men 
tioned  in  the  preceding  article,  shall  be  given  gratis  to  the  owner,  by  whom 
they  will  be  presented  to  the  supreme  government,  who  will  give  orders 
to  the  treasury  department  to  issue  the  corresponding  scrip  for  the 
respective  value  of  the  property. 

"ART.  4.  The  aforementioned  scrip  shall  be  paid  or  satisfied  in  that 
mode  which  may  appear  to  the  government  the  most  equitable,  conciliat 
ing  as  far  as  practicable  the  rights  of  the  individuals  with  the  actual 
situation  of  the  public  treasury."  [April  5,  1837.] 

From  this  I  take  it  for  granted  that  nobody  will  deny  that 
slavery  was  abolished  in  California  and  New  Mexico  at  the  time 
of  their  conquest  by  our  arms.  If  a  slave  at  that  time  had 
brought  an  action  for  his  freedom  against  his  master  before  the 
courts  of  the  country,  does  any  man  doubt  but  that  the  courts 
under  the  law  then  in  force  would  have  declared  him  to  be  free  ? 
And  as  our  Court  has  decided  that  in  all  such  cases  the  laws  of 
the  acquired  territory  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  shall 
remain  in  force  as  the  law  of  the  place  until  altered  by  com 
petent  authority,  can  any  man  doubt  that  they  would  decide  the 
question  just  as  the  Mexican  courts  would  have  decided  it  at 
that  time  ? 

It  is  with  pain  I  have  heard  allusions  made  to  the  present 
composition  of  the  Court — five  Judges  from  the  South,  and  four 
from  the  North ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  question  would  be  safe 
for  the  South  in  their  hands,  as  we  had  a  majority  of  the  bench. 
I  consider  such  an  argument  a  gross  imputation  upon  the  Court ; 
and  no  greater  disgrace  could  be  attached  to  the  members  of  it, 
or  to  the  country,  than  a  decision  made  from  any  such  considera 
tions.  No  judge,  whether  from  the  North  or  South,  could  ever 


346  SPEECH    ON    THE    TEREITOKIAL    BILL. 

be  influenced  by  such  motive?,  until  he  became  as  corrupt  and  as 
debased  as  the  execrable  Impey — the  infamous  tool  of  Hastings. 
If  I  thought  such  motives  could  operate  upon  the  Court,  that 
would  be  the  last  body  in  the  world  I  would  refer  the  deci- 
sion  of  any  question  to.  They  should  not  decide  upon  the  life 
of  my  dog  if  I  could  prevent  it.  But  while  I  am  no  advocate  of 
referring  any  political  question  to  the  decision  of  that  Court, 
I  am  nevertheless  bound  to  believe  that  they  would  decide 
honestly  to  the  best  of  their  judgment.  Such  I  believe  have 
been  the  decisions  to  which  I  have  alluded.  And  after  readiiK, 
those  decisions,  can  any  man  doubt  as  to  how  they  would  decide 
the  supposed  case  ?  I  put  the  question  to  the  good  sense  and 
calm  judgment  of  the  House. 

Sir,  it  is  useless  to  attempt  to  evade  or  get  round  this  point. 
It  is  not  for  me,  at  this  time,  to  say  any  thing  about  the  correct 
ness  of  these  decisions.  That  is  not  the  subject  now  before 
me  or  the  House.  It  is  my  duty  to  know  the  law  as  the  Court 
has  decided  it,  and  to  let  my  constituents  know  it  likewise ;  and 
not  to  jeopard  their  rights  by  any  such  reference  of  them. 

[Here  Mr.  STANTON  of  Tennessee,  asked  Mr.  STEPHENS  if  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  recognize  slavery?] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued.  Yes,  sir;  the  constitution  recognizes 
slavery,  but  only  when  it  is  not  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  State, 
or  place,  or  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  it  there.  The  constitu 
tion  recognizes  slavery  in  Tennessee  and  Georgia,  and  in  all  the 
States  where  slavery  exists  by  law ;  but  it  does  not  recognize  it 
in  New  York  or  Ohio,  or  in  any  State  where  it  is  prohibited  by 
the  law  of  the  State,  except  so  far  as  it  provides  for  the  recapture 
of  runaway  slaves.  The  constitution  recognizes  and  guaranties 
slavery  wherever  it  exists  by  the  local  law,  but  it  establishes  it 
nowhere  where  it  is  prohibited  by  law.  The  constitution,  as  I 
have  stated,  expressly  recognizes  slavery,  even  when  it  is  prohib 
ited  by  the  law  of  the  place,  but  only  so  far  as  to  provide  for 
the  recapture  of  a  runaway  slave.  If  my  slave  escapes,  and  gets 
into  a  free  State,  the  constitution  secures  me  the  right  of  pur 
suing  and  retaking  him ;  but  if  I  voluntarily  take  my  slave  into 
a  State  where  slavery  by  law  is  prohibited,  I  have  no  right  to  re 
take  him  ;  he  becomes  free.  No  man  will  question  this.  And  if 
slavery  is  prohibited  by  the  local  law  of  the  newly  acquired  terri 
tory,  the  only  guarantee  the  constitution  affords  the  slaveholder  is 
the  right  of  recapture  if  he  escapes  and  gets,  into  those  territories. 
The  constitution,  I  say,  fully  and  amply  recognizes  slavery  where 
it  exists,  but  it  establishes  it  nowhere  where  it  is  prohibited  by 
law.  It  is  important  that  the  public  mind  at  the  South  should 
not  be  misled  upon  this  point.  The  constitution  no  more  estab 
lishes  or  carries  slavery  into  States  or  territories  where  by  law  it 
is  prohibited,  than  it  establishes  or  carries  any  other  right  of  a 
citizen  which  depends  upon  the  local  law. 

The  constitution  secures  to  all  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  and 


SPEECH    ON   THE   TERRITOEIAL   BILL.  347 

territories  of  this  Union  the  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled  by 
the  laws  of  the  place.  If  Virginia,  or  Georgia,  should  abolish 
slavery,  the  constitution  would  no  more  re-establish  it  there,  than 
it  has  re-established  it  in  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  other 
States  where  it  has  been  abolished.  The  constitution  no  more 
carries  the  local  law  of  slavery  of  any  State  into  a  State  or  terri 
tory  where  by  law  it  is  prohibited,  than  it  carries  any  other  local 
law ;  no  more  than  it  carries  the  law  of  interest  upon  money,  the 
statute  of  limitations,  the  laws  of  distribution,  or  the  penaf  laws 
of  a  State.  And,  sir,  if  this  compromise  bill  had  passed,  how 
could  the  master  have  been  protected  against  the  theft  or  pur 
loining  of  his  slaves  ?  By  what  law  would  he  have  sued  to  reco 
ver  him  ?  By  what  law  would  the  sale  and  evidences  of  title  in 
slaves  have  been  determined?  Each  of  the  slave  States  has  its 
own  laws  upon  this  subject.  And  if  the  constitution  carries  the 
laws  of  the  States  into  these  territories,  does  it  carry  the  laws  of 
all  or  any  particular  one  ?  And  if  any  one,  which  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a  question  too  clear  to  admit  of  argument. 

Mr.  STANTON  again  interrupted,  and  was  understood  to  say, 
the  gentleman  then  holds,  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  Congress 
to  extend  slavery  into  territory  where  by  law  it  does  not  exist. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  My  position,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  this :  That  slavery 
is  an  institution  which  depends  solely  upon  the  municipal  laws  of 
the  place  where  it  exists  ;  and  if  it  was  prohibited  by  law  in  these 
territories  at  the  time  of  the  conquest,  it  cannot  exist  there  until 
the  laws  of  the  place  be  altered  by  the  competent  law-making 
power  for  the  territory.  In  regard  to  these  territories  and  the 
rights  of  the  South,  I  hold  that,  when  the  stipulations  of  the  late 
treaty  shall  be  complied  with,  and  the  money  paid  which  is  pro 
vided  for  in  it,  they  will  constitute  an  acquisition,  made  at  the 
cost  of  the  common  blood  and  treasure  of  the  whole  Union,  to 
ward  which  the  South  contributed  as  generously  as  the  North, 
and  in  which  the  South  is  entitled  to  a  just  and  equal  participa 
tion  ;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  see  to  it,  that  the 
just  and  equal  rights  of  my  section  are  guarded,  protected,  and 
secured  by  all  necessary  legislation.  The  right  to  acquire  and  to 
hold  territory  brings  with  it  the  duty  to  govern  it.  The  Supreme 
Court  has  so  decided,  and  in  governing,  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress 
to  act  justly  and  fairly  toward  the  rights  and  interests  of  all 
who  are  entitled  to  an  equal  share  in  the  common  domain.  This, 
sir,  is  my  position,  and  upon  it  I  shall  stand  or  fall. 

The  same  position,  I  see,  was  taken  by  a  meeting  of  the  demo 
cratic  party  in  the  city  of  Macon,  in  my  own  State,  not  long  since. 

Amongst  other  resolutions,  as  I  see  in  the  papers,  they  de 
clared— 

"  That  our  Senators  and  ^Representatives  in  Congress  should  see  to  it, 
that  the  rights  of  the  Southern  people  should  not  be  endangered  during 
the  period  the  territories  shall  remain  under  the  control  of  the  United 
States,  either  from  the  continuance  of  the  municipal  laws  of  Mexico,  or 
from  the  legislation  of  the  United  States." 


348  SPEECH   ON  THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL. 

I  stand  upon  the  principles  of  this  resolution.  It  is  the  true 
ground,  in  my  opinion,  for  southern  men  to  occupy.  I  shall 
never  give  my  sanction,  while  I  have  a  seat  upon  this  floor,  to 
any  legislation  on  the  part  of  Congress  by  which  the  rights  of 
the  southern  people  to  an  equal  and  just  participation  in  these 
territories,  while  they  remain  as  territories,  shall  be  endangered, 
nor  shall  these  rights  ever  be  endangered  or  surrendered,  by  my 
approval,  by  "a  continuance  of  the  municipal  laws  of  Mexico." 
This  Compromise  bill,  sir,  did,  in  my  opinion,  endanger  and  sur 
render  the  then  rights  of  the  South,  by  a  "  continuance  of  the  muni 
cipal  laws  of  Mexico,"  which  were  of  force  at  the  time  of  the  con 
quest,  and  by  which  slavery  was  abolished  there.  Sir,  I  set  out 
by  stating  that  I  should  not  only  challenge,  but  defy,  a  refuta 
tion  of  my  position ;  and  I  now  repeat  the  same.  The  rights  of 
the  South  are  not  only  endangered,  but  totally  abandoned  in  this 
compromise.  Its  passage  would  have  been  worse  for  the  South 
than  the  Wilmot  proviso  in  express  terms.  For  if  the  principles 
upon  which  its  southern  friends  advocated  it  be  true — that  is,  if 
by  the  constitution,  the  southern  slaveholder  has  a  right  to  carry 
and  hold  his  slaves  in  these  territories,  notwithstanding  the  ex 
isting  municipal  law  of  Mexico,  by  which  slavery  is  abolished 
there,  then,  of  course,  the  same  right  would  exist  even  if  the 
Wilmot  proviso  wer,e  passed.  And  the  proviso,  if  passed,  being 
in  contravention  of  this  constitutional  right,  of  course  the  Supreme 
Court  would  be  bound  to  decide  it  null  and  void.  So  that  the  com 
promise  secures  no  rights  to  the  South  which  they  would  not  have 
even  under  the  Wilmot  proviso  itself.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the 
Supreme  Court,  should,  under  the  Compromise  bill,  decide  against 
the  slaveholder,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  laws  of  Mexico, 
at  the  time  of  the  conquest,  were  in  force  there  until  altered  by 
some  competent  authority,  then,  sir,  we  should  be  bound  by  it 
forever ;  for  we  could  not  come  and  ask  Congress  to  alter  the 
law  against  the  compromise,  even  although  the  court  might  say 
that  Congress  had  the  power  either  directly  to  alter  it,  or  to  allow 
the  territorial  legislature  to  do  it ;  for  we  all  understand  that  a 
compromise  is  a  final  settlement,  and  all  parties  are  bound  in 
honor  to  abide  by  it. 

Then,  sir,  what  are  we  of  the  South  to  gain  by  this  compro 
mise  ?  Nothing  but  what  we  would  have,  even  with  the  Wilmot 
proviso — the  poor  privilege  of  carrying  our  slaves  into  a  country 
where  the  first  thing  to  be  encountered  is  the  certain  prospect  of 
an  expensive  lawsuit  which  may  cost  more  than  any  slave  is 
worth ;  and,  in  my  opinion,  with  the  absolute  certainty  of  ulti 
mate  defeat  in  the  end,  and  with  no  law  in  the  meantime  to  pro 
tect  our  rights  and  property  in  any  way  whatever !  This,  sir,  is 
the  substance  of  the  compromise,  even  in  the  most  favorable  view 
it  can  be  presented !  And  this  is  the  security  for  the  South  which 
I  had  the  temerity  to  reject!  Would  that  the  people  of  that  sec 
tion  may  ever  have  men  upon  this  floor  of  such  temerity  !  I  did 


SPEECH   OX   THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL.  349 

reject  it — and  I  shall  continue  to  reject  all  such  favors.  If  I  can 
get  no  better  compromise,  I  shall  certainly  never  take  any  at  all. 
As  long  as  I  have  a  seat  here,  I  shall  maintain  the  just  and  equal 
rights  of  my  section  upon  this  as  well  as  upon  all  other  questions. 
I  ask  nothing  more,  and  I  shall  take  nothing  less.  All  I  de 
mand  is  common  right  and  common  justice;  these  I  will  have  in 
clear  and  express  terms,  or  I  will  have  nothing.  I  speak  to  the 
North,  irrespective  of  parties.  I  recognize  no  party  association 
in  affiliation  upon  this  subject.  If  the  two  parties  at  the  North 
combine,  and  make  a  sectional  issue,  and  by  their  numerical 
strength  vote  down  the  South,  and  deny  us  those  equal  rights  to 
which  I  think  we  are  in  justice  entitled,  it  will  be  for  the  people 
of  the  South  then  to  adopt  such  a  course  as  they  may  deem  proper. 
I  do  not  stand  here  to  make  any  threats  in  their  name,  nor  have 
I  authorty  to  commit  even  my  own  constituents  to  any  course  of 
policy.  They  must  do  that  for  themselves.  My  commission  here 
extends  only  to  the  maintenance  of  their  rights  upon  all  ques 
tions  and  measures  that  may  come  before  me  in  this  House.  And 
this  I  shall  do  at  all  hazards.  Nor  shall  I  be  awed  or  intimi 
dated  in  the  discharge  of  this  high  duty  by  any  of  the  trembling 
alarms  of  the  official  organ,  that  the  "  Union  is  in  danger ;"  that, 
unless  agitation  upon  this  subject  is  quieted,  the  "free  soil 
movement"  in  the  North  will  sweep  every  thing  before  it,  and  that 
the  government  itself  will  be  endangered.  Such  appeals  may 
have  their  effect  upon  the  hearts  of  the  timid.  I  am,  myself,  not 
quite  so  easily  terrified  into  a  surrender  of  my  rights,  and  those 
of  my  constituents.  This  editor,  however,  or  rather  his  master, 
would  have  exhibited  much  better  judgment,  and  a  great  deal  more 
patriotism,  if  he  had  shown  a  little  more  foresight  upon  this  sub 
ject.  If  the  country  is  environed  by  dangers  and  difficulties  which 
threaten  its  ultimate  safety,  it  is  the  result  of  his  own  reckless, 
lawless,  and  unconstitutional  measures  ;  if  an  ominous  agitation 
is  felt  by  all ;  if  the  government  shakes  to  its  centre  ;.  if  the  very 
pillars  of  the  temple  of  liberty  rock  in  their  places,  he  best  knows 
what  incendiary  hand — what  Guy  Fawkes,  collected  and  fired  the 
explosive  elements.  He  may  repeat  until  doomsday,  "  we  wash 
our  skirts  of  all  the  consequences."  But  he  will  find  his  skirts 
too  deeply  stained  to  be  so  easily  washed.  This  is  but  the  fren 
zied  ravings  of  the  guilty  Macbeth,  who,  when  in  his  distempered 
vision  he  fancied  he  saw  the  ghastly  spirit  of  the  murdered 
Banquo,  exclaimed — 

"  Shake  not  thy  gory  locks  at  me, 
Thou  cans't  not  say  I  did  it." 

But  this  government  editor,  nor  the  President  whom  he  serves, 
need  not  suppose,  that  because  he  is  trembling  and  quaking  with 
fear  at  sights,  spirits,  or  spectres  dire,  which  the  consciousness  of 
his  own  misdeeds  cause  to  haunt  his  disturbed  brain,  that,  there 
fore,  everybody  else  feels  the  same  unsteadiness  of  nerve  with 


850  SPEECH   ON   THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL. 

himself.  I  look  upon  this  question  now  just  as  I  did  two  years 
ago,  when  this  war  of  conquest  commenced.  I  raised  my  voice 
against  it  then.  I  saw  what  would  be  the  result.  I  was  prepared 
for  the  present  storm  with  all  its  fury.  And  I  am  as  unmoved 
now  as  I  was  then.  I  saw  the  northern  Democrats  supporting 
the  policy  of  conquest  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  free  territory. 
I  was  opposed  to  the  whole  policy,  because  I  considered  it  con 
trary  to  the  spirit  of  our  constitution  to  wage  a  war  of  conquest 
under  any  circumstances.  But  I  was  determined  then,  if  territory 
should  be  acquired,  that  the  rights  of  my  section  to  an  equal  par 
ticipation  in  it  should  be  secured,  so  far  as  my  ability  could  con 
tribute  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  end.  And  I  stand  upon 
the  same  ground  now ;  and  I  shall  never  surrender  it  so  long  as 
the  question  is  open.  And  no  alarms  about  the  Union,  or  the 
ravings  of  brainless  scribblers  and  heartless  demagogues,  who 
croak  and  prate  upon  subjects  on  which  they  are  profoundly  igno 
rant,  shall  ever  cause  me  to  shrink  from  the  open  and  fearless 
maintenance  of  it — even  though  I  may  stand  solitary  and  alone. 

I  have  no  objection  to  compromising  the  question,  but  I  have 
only  two  plans  of  compromise :  one  is,  a  fair  division  of  the  terri 
tory  by  clear  and  distinct  lines,  by  which  every  one  may  know 
exactly  to  what  extent  his  rights  will  be  protected.  I  care  not 
much  whether  it  be  by  an  extension  of  the  Missouri  line,  or 
whether  it  be  by  adopting  as  a  line  one  of  the  mountain  ranges, 
giving  the  South  all  on  this  side,  and  the  North  all  on  the  other. 
I  am,  however,  rather  in  favor  of  the  latter ;  but  shall  insist  upon 
some  fair  and  just  division.  That  is  one  plan  of  compromise  I 
shall  favor,  and  if  I  cannot  get  that,  I  have  but  one  other  to  offer, 
and  that  is,  to  reject  the  territory  altogether.  Let  us  keep  our 
money  which  is  to  be  paid  for  it,  and  let  Mexico  keep  her  pro 
vinces  and  her  people.  Mr.  Polk,  in  his  message,  speaks  of  the 
late  treaty  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  This  I  consider  as  an 
intimation  that  this  House,  in  his  opinion,  will  be  bound  to  vote 
the  appropriations  to  carry  it  into  effect.  If  so,  I  barely  intend 
here  to  say,  that  I  wholly  disagree  with  him.  True,  the  treaty- 
making  power  is  confided  in  this  country  to  the  President  and 
Senate.  But,  sir,  the  President  and  Senate  have  no  right  or  power 
to  make  a  treaty  which  imposes  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  carry  it  into  effect.  This  principle  I 
understand  to  have  been  fairly  settled  as  the  republican  doctrine 
of  1796.  I  have  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  that  year  before 
me,  and  I  find,  on  page  499,  the  following  resolution  upon  that 
point : 

"  1st.  Resolved,  That  it  being  declared  by  the  second  section  of  the 
second  article  of  the  constitution,  '  that  the  President  shall  have  power, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  treaties,  pro 
vided  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur,'  the  House  of  Kepre- 
sentatives  do  not  claim  any  agency  in  making  treaties ;  but  that  when  a 
treaty  stipulates  regulations  on  any  of  the  subjects  submitted  by  the  con- 


SPEECH   ON"  THE   TERRITORIAL   BILL.  35 j. 

stitution  to  the  power  of  Congress,  it  must  depend  for  its  execution,  as  to 
such  stipulations,  on  a  law  or  laws  to  be  passed  by  Congress  ;  and  it  is 
the  constitutional  right  and  duty  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  all 
such  cases,  to  deliberate  on  the  expediency  or  inexpediency  of  carrying 
such  treaty  into  effect,  and  to  determine  and  act  thereon  as,  in  their  judg 
ment,  may  be  most  conducive  to  the  public  good." 

Upon  the  passage  of  this  resolution,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  54  to  3T.  Every  Repub 
lican  in  the  House,  I  think,  voted  for  it.  Amongst  others,  I  see 
the  distinguished  names  of  James  Madison,  Albert  Gallatin,  Win. 
B.  Giles,  Nathaniel  Macon,  Abram  Baldwin,  and  many  others. 
The  same  principle  has  been  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

I  have  not  time  to  enlarge  upon  this  argument  now.  I  only 
intend  to  state  the  principle,  and  show  the  authority,  that  the 
country  may  not  be  misled  upon  this  point.  The  late  treaty  is  not 
the  supreme  law  of  this  land  yet,  and  will  not  be  until  the  laws 
necessary  to  give  it  effect  are  passed.  Mr.  Polk  has  not  yet  asked 
us  to  appropriate  the  money  ;  and  when  he  does,  it  will  be  (in  the 
language  of  the  resolution  for  which  James  Madison,  and  all  the 
other  old  Republicans  in  the  House  of  IT 96,  voted)  our  constitu 
tional  right  and  duty  to  deliberate  on  the  expediency  of  making 
the  appropriation.  And  I  now  state,  that,  if  I  am  here  when 
that  appropriation  is  made,  I  shall  exercise  this  constitutional 
right,  and  I  shall  never  vote  one  dollar  from  the  common  treasure 
of  this  Union  to  pay  for  these  territories,  if  the  institutions  of  my 
section  are  to  be  wholly  excluded  from  them.  Nor  will  I  vote  one 
dollar  to  carry  this  treaty  into  effect  until  I  have  this  matter  set 
tled,  and  what  I  consider  the  rights  of  the  South  secured.  And 
I  believe  this  is  the  great  lever  of  the  South  upon  this  question. 
Let  the  bill  organizing  territorial  governments  be  linked  with  the 
appropriation  of  the  money,  and  let  the  South  present  an  unbroken 
front  against  paying  a  dollar,  if  their  institutions  are  to  be  ex 
cluded,  and  I  shall  have  some  hopes  yet  of  obtaining  justice. 

Now,  sir,  you  know  something  of  the  only  plans  upon  which  I 
intend  to  compromise  this  business.  But,  as  I  said  before,  if  in 
all  this  I  should  be  defeated — if  the  South  will  not  stand  with  me 
upon  this  point — if  the  combined  vote  of  the  North  carry  the 
Wilmot  proviso — then,  sir,  it  will  be  for  the  people  of  the  South 
to  take  their  own  course,  such  as  they  may  deem  their  interest  and 
honor  demand.  It  is  not  for  me  to  indicate  that  course.  But  one 
thing  I  will  say,  that  I  shall  be  with  them  in  whatever  course  they 
may  take.  Their  interests  are  my  interests ;  their  fortunes  are  my 
fortunes  ;  their  hopes  are  my  hopes ;  and  whatever  destiny  awaits 
them,  awaits  me  also. 

And  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that  I  have  conclusively  shown 
that  this  miscalled  Compromise  bill  ought  not  to  have  received^ 
support  from  any  quarter,  and  particularly  from  the  South. 

As  I  have  but  a  few  moments  left,  I  will  recapitulate  my  posi 
tions,  that  no  man  may  mistake  or  misunderstand  them. 


352  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND   INSTITUTE. 

The  first  is,  that,  by  the  bill,  the  whole  subject  of  slavery  in 
California  and  New  Mexico,  without  any  legislation  on  the  part 
of  Congress  or  the  territorial  governments,  one  way  or  the  other, 
is  referred  to  the  Judiciarj7  to  determine,  whether  it  can  legally 
exist  there  or  not. 

2d.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  fully  recog 
nizes,  and  amply  protects,  the  institution  of  slavery  where  it 
exists  by  the  laws  of  the  State  or  place  ;  but  it  does  not  estab 
lish  it  anywhere,  where  by  the  laws  of  the  place  it  is  prohibited. 

3d.  That  California  and  New  Mexico,  being  territories  acquired 
by  conquest,  all  the  laws  which  were  in  force  there  at  the  time 
of  the  conquest  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  which 
were  purely  of  a  political  character,  are,  according  to  well  settled 
principles,  and  the  adjudications  of  our  own  courts,  still  in  force. 

4th.  That  as  slavery  did  not  exist  there  at  the  time  of  the  con 
quest,  but  had  been  prohibited  by  express  law,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  to  whom  the  matter  was  to  be  referred  in 
the  last  resort,  could  not  be  expected,  from  the  principles  of  nu 
merous  decisions  already  made,  to  decide  otherwise  than  that 
slavery  cannot  be  protected  there  until  the  existing  law  abolishing 
it  be  altered  by  competent  authority. 

5th,  and  lastly.  That  these  positions  being  uncontrovertible, 
the  bill  offered,  as  it  was,  as  a  compromise  and  a  final  settlement 
of  the  question,  amounted  to  nothing  but  a  total  abandonment 
and  surrender  of  the  rights  of  extending  the  institutions  of  the 
South  to  those  territories. 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  MARYLAND  INSTITUTE  IN 
BALTIMORE,  IN  COMMEMORATION  OF  THE  BIRTH 
DAY  OF  WASHINGTON. 

ON  THE  EVENING  OP  THE  23D  FEBRUARY,  1852. 

RESPECTED  AUDITORY — Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 
I  need  not  assure  you  that  I  feel  very  much  embarrassed  in 
rising  to  address  you  under  the  circumstances  in  which  I  appear 
before  you.  I  had  expected  to  be  preceded  by  another  gentleman, 
who  would  have  presented  the  most  prominent  points  for  the 
evening's  entertainment ;  but  I  find  myself  in  the  foreground  in 
stead  of  the  shade  of  the  picture.  I  am  also  admonished  by  the 
place  of  our  assembling,  a  building  dedicated  to  mechanical  skill 
»nd  art,  that  all  who  bring  offerings  for  exhibition  here  should 
have  them  perfected  by  the  exactest  rules  of  correct  taste  and 
due  proportion.  What  I  have  to  say  will  be  the  crude  thoughts 
which  the  time  and  occasion  suggest.  When  I  gave  my  reluctant 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    MARYLAND   INSTITUTE.  353 

consent  to  be  thus  situated,  I  said  to  the  friend  who  urged  me  to 
it,  as  no  other  person  could  be  got  to  assume  the  task,  "  Well, 
prepared  or  unprepared,  I'll  speak.  It  shall  not  be  said  that  the 
Birthday  of  Washington  goes  begging  for  an  orator."  You  will 
please,  then,  bear  with  me.  Besides  your  kind  indulgence,  I  have 
but  one  support  on  which  I  rely,  and  that  is,  the  consciousness 
that  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh. 
The  occasion  presents  a  theme  with  which  all  our  hearts  should 
be  full.  It  is  our  country,  our  whole  country  and  nothing  but 
our  country !  We  have  just  heard  read  the  farewell  address  of 
the  father  of  this  our  country.  This  may  justly  be  considered 
the  last  will  and  testament  of  our  common  parent  to  us  his  chil 
dren.  It  bequeaths  a  rich  legacy  of  wise  lessons  and  precepts 
which  deeply  concern  our  future  political  welfare  that  should 
never  be  forgotten. 

I  propose,  first,  to  say  something  of  the  author  of  these  les 
sons,  and  then  say  something  of  the  le§sons  themselves,  and 
their  bearing  upon  our  present  and  coming  interests. 

In  speaking  of  WASHINGTON,  it  is  not  my  object  to  attempt  a 
delineation  of  his  character,  or  to  pronounce  a  eulogy  becoming 
his.  name  and  his  memory.  Well  might  I  shrink  from  an  under 
taking  which  the  ablest  and  the  best  men  in  his  own  day  and 
ours  have  failed  to  succeed  in.  There  are  some  things  in  nature 
that  defy  the  power  of  the  pencil ;  and  WASHINGTON'S  is  a 
character  that  no  hand  can  protray.  Its  merits  are  to  be  appre 
ciated  only  by  the  emotions  it  excites  by  actual  contemplation ; 
we  must  look  at  it,  behold  it,  and  study  it  to  realize  its  grand 
proportions  and  gigantic  structure.  Some  suppose  and  maintain 
that  circumstances  make  men :  that  circumstances  made  WASH 
INGTON.  Not  so.  Men  make  circumstances.  It  is  true  that 
events  and  accidents  may  occasionally  give  position  and  notoriety 
to  even  small  men  ;  and  in  the  whirl  of  public  affairs  undeserving 
men  may  sometimes  get  attached  to  their  names  ami  memory 
what  we  call  distinction  and  fame.  Such  indeed  may  well  be 
styled  the  creatures  of  circumstances.  But  those  great  events  that 
mark  epochs  in  the  history  of  nations  and  in  the  history  of  the 
world  are  the  works  of  men,  and  they  always  bear  upon  them  the 
impress  of  the  master-spirit  of  the  times.  Great  men  make  the 
subjects  of  history ;  little  men  only  figure  in  them.  All  great 
ness  is,  of  course,  comparative ;  and  with  mind  it  is  in  some 
respects  as  it  is  with  matter — a  similar  law  obtains  in  the  intel 
lectual  to  that  which  we  witness  in  the  material  or  physical 
world.  There  is  something  in  mind  not  unlike  what  is  called 
gravity  or  gravitation  in  bodies.  Each  and  every  one  within  the 
sphere  of  its  influence  acts  and  is  acted  upon  by  all  others.  But 
the  larger,  denser,  and  greater  always  predominates  in  its  power 
over  the  smaller  and  weaker.  The  lesser  is  subject  to  the 
influence  of  the  greater.  This  is  true  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as 
our  school  books  teach  us.  A  similar  principle  governs  mind 
23 


854  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND   INSTITUTE. 

and  intellect.  And  tested  by  this  principle,  where  does  WASH 
INGTON  stand  ?  What  was  his  influence  over  his  associates,  and 
who  were  his  associates  ?  They  were  FRANKLIN  and  JEFFERSON, 
and  HANCOCK  AND  HAMILTON,  and  MADISON,  SAMUEL  ADAMS  and 
JOHN  ADAMS,  JAY,  LEE,  and  PATRICK  HENRY,  and  many  others 
who  will  live  in  history  as  peers  amongst  the  greatest  men,  both 
as  orators  and  statesmen,  that  this  earth  has  ever  given  birth  to. 
"  There  were  giants  in  those  days."  Intellectual  giants.  No 
mistake  about  that.  And  these  were  the  men  on  the  stage  with 
WASHINGTON  when  the  greatest  drama  of  the  world  came  off — 
the  American  Revolution — and  the  establishment  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  I  speak  of  those  events  as  constitu 
ting  the  greatest  drama  of  the  world — because,  though  history  may 
give  us  an  account  of  more  bloody  battles  and  more  tragical  inci 
dents,  yet  never  had  there  been  before,  nor  has  there  been  since, 
any  thing  like  a  similar  contest,  in  which  the  true  principles  of 
human  liberty  were  no.t  only  involved  but  successful. 

The  success  of  our  arms  and  the  establishment  of  our  indepen 
dence  was  but  a  scene  in  that  dramatic  act.  The  great  work 
was  the  establishment  of  the  principle  of  self-government 
amongst  men.  That  was  no  easy  task.  Every  age  has  produced 
men  who  could  win  victories  and  overturn  empires.  But  no  age 
ever  before  or  since  has  produced  men  who  had  the  ability,  the 
forecast,  the  integrity,  the  will,  the  patriotism,  and  the  philosophi 
cal  statesmanship  to  construct  a  form  of  government,  or  political 
organism,  by  which  rational  liberty — liberty  regulated  and  pro 
tected  by  law — could  be  enjoyed  equally  by  every  citizen  of  the 
State.  Such  is  American  liberty.  And  in  it  is  involved  a  pro 
blem  that  the  law-givers  of  the  world  from  the  days  of  Moses  to 
the  meeting  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention  were  not  able  to 
solve.  But  by  them  it  was  solved — we  live  happily  and  prosper 
ously  under  the  success  of  the  experiment.  And"  who  was  first 
amongst  *hese  greatest  of  the  world's  great  men  ?  To  whom 
were  all  eyes  in  every  peril  and  in  every  danger  turned  ?  To 
whom  did  all  look  in  the  field  as  well  as  in  the  cabinet  ?  It  was 
WASHINGTON.  Great  as  were  Franklin,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jay, 
and  Hamilton,  and  Adams,  they  all  looked  to  Washington  as  the 
ruling  spirit  of  the  day.  He  was,  if  you  please,  the  great  central 
sun  about  and  around  which  the  others,  as  lesser  orbs,  revolved 
in  their  majestic  spheres,  each  being  himself  the  centre  of  an 
other  but  a  smaller  system.  When  the  struggle  with  the  parent 
country  first  commenced,  all  looked  to  him  to  lead  the  armies  to 
victory  and  triumph.  When  the  articles  of  union  needed  revision, 
all  looked  to  him. to  give  directions  to  their  councils.  When  the 
constitution  was  formed,  all  looked  to  him  as  the  man  to  put  the 
system  in  operation.  View  him  when  you  will  or  where  you  will 
— in  the  parlor  or  in  the  public  councils,  in  the  army  or  in  the 
convention,  as  general  or  as  President,  in  adverse  or  propitious 
fortunes — and  you  will  see  him  at  all  times  "  first  in  peace,  first 


ADDRESS   BEFOEE   THE   MARYLAND  INSTITUTE.  355 

in  war,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen !"  Tell  me  not 
that  such  a  man  owes  his  greatness  to  circumstances.  He  bore 
nature's  stamp  of  true  nobility  of  soul.  He  had  the  genius  not 
Only  to  throw  off  a  government  which  was  then  the  best  the 
world  had,  but  to  reconstruct  and  establish  another  and  a  better 
in  its  stead. 

There  are  many  points  in  this  great  man's  character  that  it 
might  be  agreeable  to  dwell  on.  It  is  often  no  less  pleasant  than 
profitable  to  philosophize  on  character.  With  this  view  biogra 
phies  are  entertaining  and  instructive.  Character  is  motive  ex 
emplified  by  action ;  and  its  study  is  the  best  key  to  those  secret 
causes  which  often  determine  the  fate  of  nations.  In  Washing 
ton's  character  there  is  nothing  more  striking  than  the  entire  ab 
sence  of  selfishness — that  nutriment  on  which  unholy  ambition 
feeds.  His  action  was  prompted  by  a  sense  of  duty,  and  from  no 
desire  of  what  is  commonly  called  glory.  Office  with  him  was  a 
high  trust  which  he  never  sought  and  which  he  never  held  either 
for  its  honors  or  emoluments.  He  never  flattered  either  the  king 
when  he  was  a  subject,  nor  the  people  when  he  was  chosen  to  be 
their  ruler.  And  no  man  could  ever  say  that  he  was  deceived  by 
him.  Truth,  fidelity,  temperance,  frugality,  sobriety,  fortitude, 
courage,  patience,  forbearance,  with  undeviating  integrity  and 
honesty — that  honesty  which  you  have  just  heard  read  as  an  in 
junction  in  his  farewell  address  as  the  best  policy  in  all  things — 
shine  as  bright  virtues  in  his  character.  What  lessons  might 
be  taken  from  a  study  of  his  life  and  acts  by  many  t)f  those  in  our 
day  who  aspire  to  statesmanship  by  no  nobler  deeds  than  tricks 
and  intrigues ;  by  scheming,  contriving,  colluding,  cheating,  mis 
representing,  and  even  by 

"  Bending  the  pregnant  hinges  of  the  knee, 
Where  thrift  may  follow  fawning." 

You  see  in  him  none  of  the  wily  arts  of  the  demagogue  or  crafty 
politician.  In  all  things  he  was  open,  frank,  bold,  and  right. 
There  was  about  him  a  perfect  simplicity  of  character  as  well  as 
grandeur.  Some  men  we  read  of,  we  contemplate  with  emotions 
similar  to  those  we  experience  in  beholding  a  beautiful  landscape 
— such  are  Fenelon,  Addison,  or  Sir  Walter  Scott.  Others  have 
those  traits  which  awaken  feelings  akin  to  the  terrible — such  are 
Genghis  Kahn,  Tamerlane,  and  Buonaparte.  But  in  Washington 
we  have  an  approximation  to  the  highest  order  of  the  moral  sub 
lime.  What  virtue  was  wanting  in  him,  or  what  vice  was  ever 
laid  to  his  charge?  Some  venture  criticism  from  the  fact  that 
he  availed  himself  of  the  assistance  of  others  in  the  preparation 
of  some  of  his  State  papers.  This  only  shows  his  juster  claims 
to  true  greatness.  Wise  men  will  always  avail  themselves  of  all 
the  aids  they  can  procure  to  carry  out  and  perfect  their  high  de 
signs.  Sir  Christopher  Wren  did  none  of  the  manual  labor  in  the 
erection  of  that  magnificient  creation  of  genius  which  will  render 


356  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    MARYLAND    INSTITUTE. 

his  name  as  enduring  as  the  dome  of  St.  Paul's.  He  was  the  de 
signer,  the  architect,  the  constructor.  So  with  Washington.  He 
planned,  he  superintended  the  structure.  The  aids  contributed 
to  him  by  others  were  no  more  to  the  grand  result  his  genius  gave 
by  the  proper  application,  than  the  quarrying  the  stone  and  dress 
ing  the  marble  were  to  the  designer  and  real  constructor  of  that 
towering  monument  to  his  memory  of  which  your  city  may  justly 
be  proud.  He  had  command  of  the  intellect  of  that  age.  And 
he  brought  proper  materials,  from  whatever  quarter  he  found 
them,  to  aid  in  rearing  and  finishing  the  majestic  temple  of  Ameri 
can  liberty  which  is  now  the  wonder  and  admiration  of  mankind. 
He  was  the  master  builder,  and  in  him  was 

"  A  combination  and  a  form  indeed, 
Where  every  god  did  seem  to  set  a  seal 
To  give  the  world  assurance  of  a  man." 

It  is  said  that  perfection  is  not  the  lot  of  human  nature.  It 
is  also  said  that  the  sun  has  spots  on  it.  If  there  be  any  defect 
or  blemish  in  the  character  of  him  whose  birthday  we  now  cele 
brate,  they  must  be  like  those  spots  on  the  sun— they  can't  be 
seen,  at  least,  with  the  naked  eye.  No  one  has  ever  yet  seen 
them  in  his  case,  even  with  a  telescope.  No,  I  am  too  fast !  It 
has  lately  been  discovered  by  one  from  abroad,  whose  advent 
amongst  us  has  been  hailed  by  certain  latter-day  saints  in  poli 
tics  as  a  second  Messiah,  that  he  was  slightly  touched  with  a 
certain  species  of  obliquity  in  his  political  vision ;  that  he  did 
not  see  straight ;  that  he  was  in  great  error,  at  least  in  some  of 
those  precepts  which  we  have  heard  to-night. 

This  brings  me  to  that  part  of  my  subject.  I  was  first  to 
speak  of  the  counsellor,  and  then  of  his  counsels.  The  heed  we 
give  to  advice  should  depend  somewhat  upon  the  worth  and  es 
timation  we  have  for  him  who  gives  it.  The  teachings  we  have 
heard  to-night,  then,  should  certainly  be  respected  in  considera 
tion  of  the  source  from  which  they  come.  They  relate  mainly, 
so  far  as  I  shall  allude  to  them,  to  two  subjects. 

The  first  is  the  relation  which  the  people  of  the  States  bear 
towrard  each  other  in  the  compact  of  union. 

The  second  is  the  relation  which  we  as  a  people  bear  towards 
other  nations. 

Both  these  subjects  are  of  vast  importance  to  the  peace,  quiet, 
and  prosperity  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  on  both 
did  Washington  dwell  in  his  last  words  to  his  countrymen,  with 
the  earnestness  of  a  departing  father  in  his  dying  injunctions 
upon  the  children  of  his  love  and  his  hope.  The  first  of  these 
objects  with  him  was  the  union  of  the  States.  For  he  saw  that" 
without  union  we  should  soon  be  without  liberty.  He  had  not 
read  history  in  vain.  He  saw  that  if  once  the  States  were  divided, 
border  jealousies  and  dissensions  would  soon  spring  up ;  that 
wars  the  most  implacable  would  follow ;  and  that  our  career,  so 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND   INSTITUTE.  357 

nobly  begun,  would  be  cut  short,  and  end  ultimately  in  despot 
ism.  Hence  he  has  invoked  us  to  look  to  the  Union  as  the  "pal 
ladium  of  our  political  safety  and  prosperity,"  and  to  frown 
down  the  "  first  dawning  of  every  attempt  to  alienate  any  por 
tion  of  the  people  of  one  section  of  our  country  from  the  rest,  or 
to  enfeeble  the  sacred  ties  which  now  link  together  the  various 
parts."  I  am  here  to-night  to  advocate  the  Union  upon  these 
principles.  What  has  it  not  already  done  for  us  ?  What  rapid 
and  unprecedented  advancement  have  we  made  under  its  influ 
ence  in  commerce,  in  art,  in  science,  and  in  every  thing  that 
elevates,  ennobles,  and  dignifies  man !  What  would  have  been 
our  condition  without  it  ?  Impoverished,  discordant,  and  bel 
ligerent  petty  sovereignties,  without  power  at  home  and  without 
respect  abroad ! 

We  cannot,  therefore,  be  too  ardent  in  our  attachment  to  the 
Union,  when  we  consider  its  objects, -and  what  it  is  capable  of 
effecting,  so  long  as  those  objects  are  kept  in  view.  But  allow 
me,  fellow-citizens — and  I  have  the  privilege  as  well  as  the 
pleasure  of  thus  addressing  you  under  the  provisions  of  this 
Union — to  say  that  upon  the  subject  of  the  Union  and  its  pre 
servation  we  must  not  let  our  zeal  take  the  place  of  knowledge. 
The  Union,  with  the  constitution  as  its  basis,  is  a  complicated 
and  delicately  constructed  system  of  government.  It  is  a  politi 
cal  organization,  and  it  is  with  it,  as  it  is  with  all  other  organi 
zations,  or  organisms,  there  are  certain  general  principles  that 
must  be  looked  to  when  we  consider  what  will  probably  disturb 
its  operations.  Its  best  friends,  then,  will  be  those  who  most 
carefully  study  those  general  principles,  which  may  be  denomi 
nated  the  laws  regulating  its  existence.  To  understand  how  to 
preserve  it  requires  a  thorough  knowledge  of  its  nature ;  its 
organic  structure,  as  well  as  the  relations  and  functions  of  all 
its  parts.  Life  in  my  body  is  an  emanation  from  the  animal 
organism  of  the  various  parts  of  my  physical  frame.  To  pre 
serve  this  life  I  must  observe  the  general  laws  or  principles  that 
regulate  it. 

The  Union  is  founded  upon  the  constitution — this  is  the  life,  the 
spirit,  and  soul  of  our  body  politic.  To  preserve  it  there  are  cer 
tain  general  principles  to  be  observed.  One  of  the  first  of  them 
is  a  constant  attention  to  the  objects  for  which  it  was  formed.  The 
life  and  spirit  of  the  Union  spring  from  the  objects  for  which  it 
was  formed.  To  preserve  its  life  and  spirit,  the  bare  name  with 
out  the  substance,  must  always  be  held  subordinate  to  the  original 
or  vital  principle. 

,  When  the  soul  has  departed  the  dead  body  may  remain  for  a 
while,  but  the  energies  and  functions  of  the  living  man  will  be 
gone  to  return  no  more.  So  with  our  government.  Nothing  is 
more  essential  to  its  existence  and  preservation  than  that  har 
mony  and  domestic  tranquility  in  all  its  parts  which  were  amongst 
the  prominent  objects  of  its  creation.  Every  attempt,  therefore, 


358  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    MARYLAND   INSTITUTE. 

to  alienate  the  affections  of  the  people  from  their  government,  as 
well  as  every  attempt  to  invoke  the  action  of  their  government 
on  such  objects  as  will  have  this  tendency,  should  be  indignantly 
frowned  down  by  every  true  lover  of  his  country,  wherever  his 
lot  may  be  cast.  This  is  patriotism.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who 
believe  that  patriotism  is  indigenous  to  any  particular  locality 
in  our  country  more  than  another.  It  is  a  plant  of  as  spontane 
ous  and  luxuriant  a  growth  upon  the  green  mountains  of  Ver 
mont  and  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts, 
as  it  is  upon  the  broad  savannahs  of  the  South  or  the  rich  prairies 
of  the  West.  Bad  and  reckless  men  may  be  found  in  all  sec 
tions.  But  we  have  never  yet  passed  a  crisis  (and  we  have  had 
many  in  our  history)  when  there  was  not  patriotism  enough  in 
all  parts,  when  thoroughly  aroused,  to  rescue  us  from  difficulty. 
From  this  fact  alone  the  friends  of  the  Union  upon  the  princi 
ples  of  the  constitution,  here  to-night,  have  abundant  reason  to 
indulge  a  confident  hope  for  the  future.  But  I  must  pass  on. 

The  other  point  I  promised  to  allude  to  is  the  subject  of  our 
foreign  relations.  This  is  becoming  a  matter  of  grave  and  mo 
mentous  importance  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  people. 
It  was  a  matter  that  the  far-seeing  eye  of  Washington  did  not 
overlook.  Hence  his  emphatic  and  solemn  warning  which  you 
have  just  heard  "  against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence, 
(I  conjure  you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens,)  thejealo\isy  of  a  free 
people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake"  This  was  the  language  of 
the  patriot  and  sage  in  his  last  words  to  his  countrymen.  The 
hand  that  penned  it  has  long  since  returned  to  its  mother  dust ; 
but  the  same  voice  still  comes  from  his  tomb  at  Mount  -Ye rn on, 
and  here  this  night,  I  invoke  you,  for  his  sake,  if  not  for  your 
own,  to  hearken  to  that  voice.  Again  he  says :  "  The  great  rule 
of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foregin  nations  is,  in  extending  our 
commerecial  relations,  to  have  with  them,  as  little  political  con 
nection  as  possible."  From  that  day  to  this — for  more  than  half 
a  century — we  have  followed  that  advice.  Our  motto  from  that 
time  to  this,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  has  been  "  Friend 
ship  with  all  nations — entangling  alliances  with  none."  And  I 
am  proud  to  say  that  no  American — no  son  of  Washington,  not 
even  the  most  degenerate — was  the  first  to  advocate  a  change  of 
this  policy.  It  was  reserved  for  the  son  of  another  and  a  dis 
tant  clime — a  man,  too,  who  had  abandoned  his  own  country 
in  the  hour  of  her  peril,  to  come  here  to  teach  us  how  to  make 
ours  great,  prosperous,  and  powerful.  For  the  honor  of  Ameri 
cans,  I  say,  be  it  spoken,  that  this  first  attempt  to  arraign 
the  wisdom  of  Washington  on  this  question  of  our  foreign  policy* 
was  made  by  a  foreigner.  Would  that  I  could  say  that  no 
American  had  yielded  to  "  the  insidious  wiles  of  his  influence." 
But  the  virus  has  taken  effect ;  it  is  spreading  through  the  land  ; 
and  we  now  hear  it  openly  proclaimed  in  many  places,  that  it  is 
time  for  us  to  assume  our  position  amongst  the  nations  of  the 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    MARYLAND   INSTITUTE.  359 

earth ;  that  it  is  time  we  had  a  foreign  policy.  What  does  this 
language  mean  ?  Is  it  intended  by  those  who  use  it  to  convey 
the  idea  that  we  have  gone  on  for  upward  of  sixty  years  in  a 
career  of  prosperity  never  before  equalled,  without  any  foreign 
policy  ?  Was  not  the  rule  laid  down  by  Washington,  and  acted 
on  by  every  President  from  his  day  to  this,  a  policy  ?  It  was  a 
policy.  It  was  and  is  the  policy  of  attending  to  our  own  business, 
and  letting  other  nations  alone.  It  was  and  is  the  policy,  the 
time-honored  policy,  of  non-intervention.  It  may  not  be  a  foreign 
policy,  but  it  is  a  Washington  policy ;  by  an  observance  of  which 
we  have  come  to  be  what  we  are — one  of  the  first  nations  of  the 
earth.  Are  we  to  be  told  that  it  is  now  time  for  us  to  assume  a 
place  amongst  the  powers  of  the  world  ?  Did  not  our  forefathers 
do  that  when  they  compelled  Great  Britain,  in  1783,  to  acknowl 
edge  our  sovereignty  and  independence  ?  Had  we  no  position 
amongst  the  great  nations  when  France  sought  our  alliance  in 
1795  and  '96,  which  overture  was  rejected?  Had  we  no  position 
in  1812,  when  we  again  met  in  combat  our  old  enemy,  and  the 
most  formidable  foe  then  in  the  world  ?  Had  we  no  position 
when  British  fleets  were  driven  from  our  seas,  and  her  invading 
armies  were  cut  down  and  beaten  back  from  our  shores  ?  Were 
the  heroic  deeds  of  our  naval  officers,  to  whose  memory  a  marble 
monument  has  been  erected  on  the  capital  grounds,  performed 
before  we  bad  sufficient  power  to  be  felt  ?  Was  the  gallant  and 
daring  defence  of  your  own  city,  which  you  have  put  in  monu 
mental  remembrance  on  your  own  public  square,  all  done  without 
a  foreign  policy,  and  before  we  were  enabled  to  take  a  place 
amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth  ?  Be  not  deceived  my  fellow- 
countrymen,  we  have  had  a  policy  from  the  beginning.  It  is  a 
good  policy  ;  it  has  worked  well.  Let  us  adhere  to  it. 

And,  above  all,  lend  no  listening  ear  to  those  who  come  from 
other  countries  to  teach  you  the  principles  of  republicanism. 
Yield  not  to  the  tempter.  The  father  of  your  country  forbids.  It 
was  in  an  evil  hour  that  our  great  first  parents  touched  the  for 
bidden  fruit.  They  were  happy  in  their  paradise ;  their  wily 
enemy  came  from  other  regions.  Imagine  for  a  moment  the 
scene,  when  the  guardian  angel  of  that  innocent  and  noble  pair 
took  his  last  departure  from  them ;  when  he  was  called  away 
from  his  charge  of  watching  over  and  protecting  them.  Hear 
the  last  whispers  of  his  voice,  beware  of  foreign  influence.  It  was 
thus  that  Washington,  our  deliverer,  defender,  and  guardian  spirit, 
spoke  to  us  on  taking  his  last  parting  leave.  Had  they  heeded 
the  warning  given  to  them,  they  had  not  fallen.  May  we  as  a 
nation  never  fall  ag  they  did ! 

The  right,  fellow-citizens,  to  interfere  in  circumstances  that 
might  happen,  I  do  not  mean  to  discuss.  I  grant  that  we  have 
all  the  attributes  and  powers  of  a  full-grown  nation,  so  far  as  our 
foreign  relations  are  concerned.  But  the  right  to  do  a  thing  and 
the  policy  or  propriety  of  doing  it  are  quite  different  questions. 


360  ADDEESS  BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND   INSTITUTE. 

Any  man  can  get  into  a  fight  when  he  pleases.  And  so  can  we. 
Intervention  to  prevent  intervention  is  very  much  like  getting 
into  a  fight  to  prevent  a  fight.  Intermeddlers  with  other  people's 
business  generally  come  off  worsted.  Be  not  misled  by  appeals  to 
your  sympathy.  It  is  for  no  want  of  the  profoundest  sympathy  for 
the  misgoverned  tribes  of  the  race  of  man  in  all  parts  of  the  world 
that  I  speak  as  I  do.  It  was  for  no  want  of  sympathy  for  them 
that  Washington  spoke  as  he  did.  I  wish  that  all  nations  had  as 
good  a  government  as  we  have.  But  we  should  riot  peril  our  own 
life  in  hopeless  efforts  to  rescue  that  of  others.  Let  us  not,  in  a 
fit  of  misguided  zeal  for  the  liberties  of  mankind,  lose  our  own. 
All  men  are  not  suited  for  constitutional  free  government.  One 
of  the  most  common  of  the  popular  errors  of  the  day  is  that  any 
people  having  the  wish  to  be  free  also  have  the  ability  to  be  free. 
This  is  a  great  mistake.  Constitutional  liberty,  or  liberty  regula 
ted  by  law — the  only  liberty  that  is  worth  the  name — is  not  so 
easily  acquired.  If  it  were,  we  would  not  to-day  be  the 
only  people  on  earth  in  its  enjoyment.  It  is  true,  the  people  of 
almost  any  nation,  with  a  firm  resolution,  can  overthrow  the 
strongest  of  despotisms,  but  they  can  not  build  up  a  republic  in 
its  stead.  This  requires  more  than  physical  force.  It  requires 
virtue,  intelligence,  morality,  patriotism,  and  statesmanship.  Bru 
tus  and  a  few  associates  found  no  difficulty  in  removing  Caesar 
from  an  imperial  throne.  But  they  did  not  thereby  restore  lost 
freedom  to  Rome.  France  found  but  little  difficulty  in  bringing 
Louis  the  XVI.  to  the  block;  but  France  did  not  thereby  estab 
lish  a  republic.  She  found  even  less  difficulty  in  driving  Charles 
the  X.  from  the  kingdom  he  had  so  badly  governed ;  but  she  did 
not  thereby  succeed  in  establishing  a  good  government  for  the 
people.  Louis  Philippe  had  in  like  manner  in  a  short  time  to  be 
carried  to  her  Tarpeian  Rock.  It  is  now  just  four  years  since  she 
made  her  last  effort  at  republicanism.  And  what  do  we  now  be 
hold  ?  Louis  Napoleon — a  President  King ! 

And  so  it  will  be,  I  fear,  with  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  until 
there  be  a  change  in  the  minds,  habits,  education,  and  modes  of 
thinking  on  the  part  of  their  people.  Liberty,  in  their  estima 
tion,  is  licentiousness,  lawlessness.  They  do  not  understand  or 
appreciate  its  first  principles.  Men,, to  be  capable  of  maintaining 
law  and  order  in  a  free  government,  must  be  schooled  in  the  ele 
mentary  principles. 

Suppose  the  autocrat  of  Russia  four  years  ago  had  taken  sides 
with  the  exiled  Louis  Philippe,  and  we  had  intervened  to  prevent 
his  intervention.  What  would  have  been  our  condition  to-day  ? 
After  the  expenditure  of  millions  in  money,  and  the  loss  perhaps 
of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  bravest  sons  in  foreign  wars,  we 
should  have  found  the  people  of  France  shouting  huzzas  to  the 
emperor  in  the  person  of  the  ''nephew  of  his  uncle."  All  such 
crusades  are  idle.  And  if  to-day  we  should  go  and  surround 
"  poor  down-trodden  Hungary"  with  a  wall  so  high  and  so  deep 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND  INSTITUTE.  361 

that  a  Russian  could  neither  scale  it  nor  undermine  it,  and  leave 
the  people  of  that  ill-fated  country  to  perfect  "fair  play"  amongst 
themselves,  I  should  expect  nothing  with  more  certainty  than 
that,  in  quite  as  short  a  time  as  France  has  been  trying  the  ex 
periment,  we  should  have  her  fickle  and  restless  population  cry 
ing  out  for  the  restoration  of  the  House  of  Hapsburg !  Why 
then,  again,  I  ask  in  the  language  of  Washington,  "  Why  quit  our 
own  to  stand  on  foreign  ground  ?  Why  be  interweaving  our  des 
tiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  entangle  our  peace  and 
prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition,  rivalship,  interest, 
humor,  or  caprice  ? 

Here,  perhaps,  I  should  stop.  But  there  are  some  reflections 
growing  out  of  these  topics  which,  it  seems  to  me,  may  be  appro 
priately  connected  with  them.  It  is  now  just  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  since  Washington  was  born.  What  was  the  condi 
tion  of  our  country  then  ?  What  is  it  now  ?  And  what  is  it  to 
be  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  hence,  if  we  continue  to  follow 
that  line  of  policy  which  has  marked  our  past  career  ?  Baltimore 
then  was  hardly  a  hamlet ;  now  her  population  is  over  one  hun 
dred  and  seventy  thousand,  and  the  canvas  of  her  commerce 
whitens  every  sea  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  while  her  productive 
industry  turns  out  an  annual  yield  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  I 
What  is  true  of  Baltimore  in  improvement  and  advancement  is 
true  of  almost  every  other  part  of  our  common  country — not  in 
extent,  but  in  a  relative  degree.  In  1T32,  the  population  of  the 
colonies  which  afterward  became  the  United  States,  was  less, 
perhaps,  than  two  millions.  The  population  of  the  United  States 
now  is  over  twenty-three  millions.  Then  an  unbroken  wilder 
ness  extended  from  a  border  near  us  to  the  distant  Pacific.  The 
great  valley  of  the  Mississippi  was  reposing  under  the  shade  of 
her  primeval  forests,  in  which  the  silence  of  centuries  remained 
unbroken  by  the  voice  of  civilization.  Now  behold  her  teeming 
population,  her*  cultivated  plains,  her  villages,  towns,  and  cities, 
springing  up  as  if  by  magic,  and  her  majestic  rivers  alive  with 
her  accumulating  commerce.  See  the  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  emigrants  annually  quitting  the  despotisms  of  the  old  world, 
and  taking  shelter  and  protection  in  this  our  favored  land  !  To 
these  we  give  a  hearty  welcome.  We  offer  a  safe  retreat  for  the 
exile,  and  a  peaceful  quiet  home  for  the  emigrant,  but  no  theatre 
for  foreign  propagandists. 

But  these  are  not  all  the  subjects  suitable  for  our  contempla 
tion  on  this  occasion-  What  advancement  have  we  made  since 
this  government  was  formed,  in  letters,  in  mechanic  arts,  in  dis 
coveries,  in  inventions,  and  in  science  ?  Consider  the  number  and 
character  of  our  schools  of  learning,  our  academies,  colleges,  and 
universities  ;  colleges  for  the  education  of  women  as  well  as  men. 
See  what  steam  has  done  under  the  power  and  control  of  Ameri 
can  genius,  fostered  lay  the  influence  of  our  free,  wise,  and  ben 
eficent  institutions.  Behold  the  mysterious  workings  of  the  tele- 


362  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    MARYLAND   INSTITUTE. 

graph.  It  was  Franklin's  honor  to  "  weave  his  garland  of  the 
lightning's  wing,"  and  "  with  the  thunder  talk  as  friend  to  friend." 
But  it  has  been  Morse's  glory,  in  our  own  day,  to  seize  the  spirit 
of  the  lightning  itself,  and  to  make  it  the  swift  messenger  of  our 
thoughts.  What  has  caused  this  mighty  change  ?  Need  I  tell  you 
it  is  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  ?  It  is  that  government  which 
makes  us  not  only  one  people,  but  a  people  with  whatever  diver 
sity  of  interests  or  pursuits  having  all  alike  security  at  home 
and  abroad.  That  government  which  heretofore  has  looked  to 
our  own  safety,  welfare,  peace,  quiet,  prosperity,  and  domestic 
tranquillity,  without  meddling  with  the  affairs  of  others,  further 
than  to  give  them  the  influence  of  a  noble  example.  Shall  this 
state  of  things  continue  ?  Shall  we  go  on  in  the  bright  career  we 
have  commenced  ?  Have  we  a  national  immortality  before  us  ?  Or 
is  the  sun  of  our  glory  soon  to  go  clown  in  darkness  to  rise  no 
more  ?  These  are  questions  which  will  spring  up  in  the  anxious 
mind  ;  but  to  them  no  answer  can  be  given.  They  involve  the 
subtle  problems  of  human  destiny.  Provfdence  has  wisely  veiled 
the  future  from  our  vision.  All  we  have  to  do  is  with  the 
present.  Let  us  take  care  that  that  is  done  rightly,  and  we  need 
not  fear  for  what  shall  come  after. 

But  bear  with  me  when  I  assure  you  that  I  have  s.n  abiding,  a 
living  hope  that  there  are  richer  treasures  of  national  greatness 
in  store  for  us  than  we  have  yet  attained.  You  may  call  it  su 
perstition,  or  call  it  what  you  please ;  but  I  believe  there  is  a 
superintending  Providence  that  controls  the  destinies  of  nations 
as  well  as  the  fortunes  of  men.  When  we  look  at  this  country, 
and  consider  the  circumstances  under  which  its  settlement  by  our 
ancestors  was  first  made,  and  trace  its  history  from  Plymouth  and 
Jamestown  to  the  present  day,  have  we  not  many  evidences  to 
impress  our  minds  with  the  belief  that  we  are. a  peculiar  and  a 
favorite  people,  and  that  we  have  some  high  mission  yet  to  per 
form  ?  See  the  perils  we  have  passed  ;  see  the  hand  of  deliver 
ance  when  hope  has  been  sinking  in  despair !  How  often,  in  the 
war  of  the  revolution,  in  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  and 
its  adoption  by  the  States,  did  our  fortunes  seem  to  be  trembling 
in  an  uncertain  balance  ?  How  often  since  then  have  we  passed 
safely  through  crises  of  danger,  when  the  stoutest  of  patriot 
hearts  beat  with  apprehension  that  all  might  be  lost  ? 

Some  who  now  hear  me,  doubtless  recollect  how  it  was  in  the 
darkest  hour  in  the  war  of  1812  ;  when  the  Capitol  was  smoulder 
ing  in  ruins  ;  when  the  Hartford  Convention  was  in  session ; 
when  secession  and  disruption  were  threatened ;  when  the  future 
assumed  its  blackest  robes,  and  men's  spirits  sunk  within  them  ! 
It  was  then  that  the  victory  of  New  Orleans  was  hailed  as  the 
voice  of  a  friendly  messenger  from  some  distant  world.  The 
great  battle  had  been  fought,  the  victory  was  won,  the  war  was 
ended.  Peace  soon  reigned  again  in  the  land,  and  with  it  came 
the  smiles  of  fraternal  feeling  and  brotherly  love  between  all  parts 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   MARYLAND  INSTITUTE.  363 

of  the  Union.  Again,  we  had  the  Missouri  agitation,  which 
seemed  at  one  time  to  be  the  rock  on  which  we  should  split.  Yet 
the  spirit  of  compromise  prevailed.  After  that  came  the  nullifi 
cation  crisis.  At  one  time  a  collision  of  arms  seemed  to  be  inev 
itable  ;  force  was  preparing  against  force.  Had  one  gun  been 
fired,  who  can  tell  what  we  should  now  have  been  ?  But  in  the 
very  last  moment  the  spirit  of  compromise,  the  presiding  genius 
of  this  favorite  republic,  ruled  the  hour,  and  all  was  safe. 

Then,  last  of  all,  came  the  late  fearful  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question,  the  lively  recollections  of  which  are.  so  fresh  upon  the 
memories  of  us  all.  Perhaps  at  no  period  in  our  past  history 
was  the  danger  of  disunion  ever  more  imminent  and  threatening 
than  it  was  then.  Yet  dark  and  terrible  as  was  the  night,  it  was 
not  without  a  dawn — a  return  of  light,  and  with  it  hope  !  The 
spirit  of  compromise  again  hovered  over  the  country,  and  with 
it  came  deliverance !  Now,  in  all  this  is  not  the  hand  of  Provi 
dence  visible  ?  If  like  contests  and  conflicts  of  interests  had  ex 
isted  amongst  the  people  of  any  other  nation  in  the  world,  would 
not  the  sword  have  been  drawn  long  since  ?  Let  us  then  take 
new  hope  for  the  future.  Let  the  true  friends  of  the  country, 
the  friends  of  the  constitution  and  the  principles  of  the  constitu 
tion,  the  friends  of  the  Union  upon  the  principles  and  for  the  ob 
jects  of  the  Union,  never  despair.  We  have  a  great  duty  to 
perform — a  grand  and  high  mission  to  fulfill.  We  have  but  be 
gun  in  our  rising  ascent.  Our  forefathers  and  our  fathers  did 
much.  But  they  got  only  slight  glimpses  of  what  we  see  around 
us.  Our  realization  of  the  fruits  of  their  labors  are  already  far 
above  their  most  sanguine  anticipations : 

"  While,  from  the  bounded  level  of  'their'  mind, 
Short  views  'they  took'  nor  '  saw'  the  lengths  behind : 
'  We,'  more  advanced,  behold  with  strange  surprise, 
New  distant  scenes  of  endless  'progress'  rise. 
So  pleased  at  first,  the  towering  Alps  we  try — 
Mount  o'er  the  vales  and  seem  to  skim  the  sky. 
The  increasing  prospect  '  starts'  our  wandering  eyes ; 
Hills  peep  o'er  hills  and  Alps  on  Alps  arise  !" 

Who  can  tell  what  wonderful  discoveries  and  developements 
are  yet  to  be  attained  by  the  present  generation,  or  those,  who 
shall  succeed  them  ? 

These  are  reflections  pleasant  to  indulge  in  on  an  occasion 
similar  to  the  present.  They  address  themselves  alike  to  the  old 
and  young — the  fathers  and  the  sons,  as  well  as  the  mothers  and 
daughters  of  the  land.  And  it  is  a  source  of  great  pleasure  to 
me  to  see  so  many  of  my  fair  countrywomen  out  to  honor  with 
their  presence  the  ceremonies  of  this  celebration.  No  class  in 
society  have  a  greater  interest  in  perpetuating  the  insftutions  of 
this  country  than  they  have.  For  here  alone  woman  is  truly 
elevated  to  that  high  position  for  which  she  was  intended,  and 
which  she  fiUs  with  so  much  dignity,  influence,  and  power.  You 


364     ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   EMORY    COLLEGE   SOCIETIES. 

have,  my  fair  countrywomen,  a  bright  example  set  before  you  in 
the  character  of  the  mother  of  him  who  is  the  subject  of  this 
evening's  reminiscences.  May  you  imitate  her  virtues,  and  may 
your  "  last  end  be  like  hers."  Let  us  all  then,  old  and  young, 
fathers  and  mothers,  sons  and  daughters,  take  for  our  motto : 
"  Our  country,  our  whole  country,  and  nothing  but  our  country ;" 
may  her  progress  be  onward  and  upward. 


ADDRESS    BEFORE     THE    FEW    AND     PHI     GAMMA 
SOCIETIES  OF  EMORY  COLLEGE,  OXFORD,  GA. 

"Nil  tarn  difficile,  quod  non  Solertia  vincat" 

JULY  21,  1852. 

RESPECTED  AUDITORY — Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 
In  the  order  of  these  exercises,  the  closing  part  has  been 
assigned  to  me.  And  it  is  not  without  some  hesitation  and  reluc 
tance  I  enter  upon  its  performance.  The  field  to  me  is  compara 
tively  a  new  one.  Such  audiences  as  I  am  accustomed  to  address, 
are  of  a  character  quite  different  from  that  of  the  one  now  before 
me.  And  those  subjects  and  topics  with  which  I  am  most 
familiar,  are  unsuited  to  this  time  and  place.  If,  therefore,  I 
had  been  governed  by  the  precepts  of  a  classic  maxim,  which 
the  circumstances  that  surround  me  very  forcibly  suggest,  per 
haps  I  should  not  have  been  so  presumptuous  and  disregardful 
of  its  prudent  admonitions  as  to  have  yielded  my  assent  to 
appear  before  you  at  all  on  the  present  occasion. 

But  where  duty  calls,  obedience  is  an  obligation.  These 
pleasant  grounds  and  academic  groves,  it  is  true,  present  no 
forum  for  public  debate — no  tribunal  for  the  adjudication  of  dis 
puted  rights,  and  no  rostrum  for  the  discussion  of  mooted  ques 
tions  of  public  policy.  They  enclose,  however,  a  consecrated 
nursery  of  mind.  Here  intellectual  scions  are  nurtured  and 
fostered  until  they  attain  sufficient  growth  and  vigor  to  be  trans 
planted  into  other  places  in  the  world  of  society  without,  not  only 
for  ornament,  but  usefulness.  Here,  too,  is  erected  an  altar 
dedicated  to  learning,  to  letters,  and  to  the  general  promotion 
of  knowledge.  And  upon  such  an  altar,  it  may  well  be  con 
sidered  the  duty  of  every  one  to  contribute  his  offering,  when 
required,  according  to  his  ability,  even  though  it  be  but  a  "  mite." 
It  is  under  the  influence  of  such  considerations  you  see  me  here. 
And  it  is,  doubtless,  under  the  influence  of  feelings  of  a  somewhat 
like  character,  that  this  large  and  imposing  assembly  have  come 
up  from  different  and  distant  quarters  of  the  country  on  this 
returning  commencement,  to  manifest  the  interest  they  feel  in  the 
objects  for  which  this  institution  was  founded,  as  well  as  to  par- 


ADDEESS   BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES.     365 

take  of  the  pleasure  which  its  increasing  success  is  calculated  to 
impart.  Here  we  see  persons  of  all  conditions  and  ranks  in  life  ; 
persons  of  all  classes  and  pursuits — the  statesman,  the  divine, 
the  journalist,  the  physician,  the  lawyer,  the  teacher,  the  mer 
chant,  the  mechanic,  the  planter,  and  the  farmer,  the  high  and 
the  low,  the  learned  and  the  unlearned,  the  gay  and  the  grave, 
the  old  and  the  young,  fathers  and  sons,  mothers  and  daughters, 
all  congregated  together,  and  all  filled  with  a  common  object ! 
That  object  is  the  noble  cause  of  education,  mental  improve 
ment,  advancement,  refinement  and  progress  !  How  interesting 
and  gratifying  it  is  to  behold  such  a  spectacle!  How  impressive 
the  fact  is,  as  a  distinguishing  characteristic  of  our  people ! 

All  nations  and  states,  as  well  as  individuals,  have  their  pecu 
liar  characteristics.  Those  unmistakable  marks  of  tastes,  habits, 
and  inclinations,  which  not  only  assign  them  their  true  position 
amongst  their  cotemporaries,  but  which  are  the  unerring  indicia 
of  the  tendency  of  their  course  in  the  untried  and  uncertain 
future  which  lies  before  them.  In  all  countries  and  in  all  ages, 
the  people  have  had,  as  they  always  will  have,  such  public  dis 
plays  and  demonstrations  as  never  fail  to  manifest  these  distinc 
tive  qualities.  In  ancient  Greece  they  had  their  g3^mnasia,  and 
Olympic  games.  In  Rome  they  had  their  saturnalia  and  gladia 
torial  shows.  In  Spain,  to  this  day,  they  have  their  bull  fights, 
and  their  carnivals.  While,  with  the  wild  Indians  of  this  conti 
nent,  the  green-corn  dance  and  the  ball  play,  are  as  old  as  their 
legends. 

But  with  us,  (I  speak  now  of  Georgia,)  the  great  gala  day  in 
country,  village,  and  town — the  day  when  all  business  is  sus 
pended,  and  the  whole  people  turn  out  to  catch  and  enjoy  the 
prevailing  spirit  of  the  occasion — is  the  day  of  the  school  exhibi 
tion  and  the  college  commencement.  We  see  this  at  all  our  acade 
mies,  seminaries,  and  universities,  both  male  ami  female,  for 
which  the  State  is  so  much  distinguished.  It  is  such  a  turn  out 
that  we  witness  here  to-day.  And  who  that  rightly  reads  the 
signs  of  the  times  does  not  see  in  these  manifestations,  the  germ 
of  increasing  power  and  greatness?  Lord  Bacon  said,  "knowl 
edge  is  power."  And  Solomon  said,  long  before  Bacon,  "A  wise 
man  is  strong."  What  is  true  of  one  man  in  this  particular,  is 
true  of  communities  and  States.  The  seat  of  empire  over  men 
as  well  as  nature,  never  fails  in  the  end  to  follow  the  seat  of 
intellectual  power. 

This  display  then,  and  the  intellectual  feast  which  has  been  so 
profusely  spread  out  for  the  common  enjoyment  of  all  during 
the  continuance  of  these  ceremonies  have  much  in  them  to  cheer 
and  encourage,  not  only  the  faculty,  founders,  and  patrons  of 
Emory  College,  but  all  who  feel  an  interest  in  the  position  which 
our  State  is  destined  to  occupy  amongst  her  sisters,  in  that  con 
federacy  of  States,  which  now  stands  first  amongst  the  powers 
of  the  world ! 


366     ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES. 

But  after  so  much  has  been  said,  and  so  appropriately,  ele 
gantly,  and  eloquently  said,  not  only  by  my  seniors  who  have 
just  addressed  you,  (Dr.  George  F.  Pierce,  the  President,  and 
Hon.  George  R.  Gilmer,)  but  even  by  my  juvenile  competitors, 
wherewithal  shall  I,  at  the  close  of  these  scenes,  essay  to  enter 
tain  an  audience  so  assembled,  and  animated  with  such  feelings 
and  objects. 

"  A  word  fitly  spoken,"  we  are  told  "  is  like  apples  of  gold  in 
pictures  of  silver."  What  important  results  often  depend  even  upon 
a  word  ?  And  what  greater  results  still  oftener  depend  upon  the 
time  and  manner  of  the  utterance  of  that  word?  What  word, 
then,  can  be  "fitly  spoken"  at  this  time  during  the  few  moments 
I  shall  trespass  upon  your  patience. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  that  perhaps  I  could  do  no  greater  ser 
vice  to  those  young  gentlemen  at  whose  call  I  appear  before  you, 
than  to  address  some  views,  particularly  to  them,  upon  a  matter, 
which,  of  all  others  of  an  earthly  nature,  must  be  of  the  deepest 
interest  and  concernment  to  them.  I  mean  the  subject  of  their 
future  success  in  life. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  say  any  thing  that  may  be  considered 
as  trenching  in  any  degree  upon  what  was  so  well  and  "fitly" 
said  by  the  reverend  and  distinguished  head  of  the  faculty,  in 
his  parting  admonitions  to  the  graduating  class.  My  object  is 
to  present  some  thoughts  outside  of  that  sphere  of  topics  to 
which  he  alluded. 

The  most  difficult  and  perplexing  problem  ever  submitted  to 
the  youthful  aspirant  is  the  problem  of  life.  The  great  question 
how  he  shall  succeed!  This  is  the  subject  which  most  of  all 
gives  him  anxious  thoughts  by  day  and  by  night.  All  seem  to 
be  duly  impressed  with  the  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  they 
have  a  part  to  perform  in  the  interesting  and  complicated  drama 
of  the  world',  upon  whose  stage  they  are  about  to  enter ;  and  all 
seem  to  be  sufficiently  possessed  of  those  laudable  impulses  of 
our  nature  which  inspire  them  with  an  earnest  desire  to  perform 
that  part  well.  But  the  anxious  inquiry  with  every  one  is  as  to 
the  means.  What  are  the  requisites  ?  How  shall,  and  how  can, 
the  object  desired  be  accomplished  ? 

I  propose,  young  gentlemen  of  the  two  societies,  with  your 
kind  indulgence,  to  point  out  some  of  those  qualities  or  elements  of 
character  which  may  be  deemed  as  essential  requisites  for  success 
in  whatever  profession,  pursuit,  or  business,  life's  destiny  may 
be  cast ;  those  elements  which  every  one  should  duly  consider, 
.who  looks  to  worthy  deeds  and  honorable  achievements  as  the 
foundation  of  that  name  and  reputation  which  he  would  leave 
after  him.  It  is  only  to  those  whose  aspirations  for  distinction 
rest  upon  this  basis,  that  these  remarks  are  intended. 

And  to  the  consideration  of  such,  the  first  of  these  requisites 
which  I  submit,  is  self-knowledge.  It  has  been  said,  and  said 
with  truth  to  a  considerable  degree,  that  "  every  man  is  the  ar- 


ADDRESS  BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES       367 

chitect  of  his  own  fortunes."  As  it  is  essential  for  a  builder  to 
be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  tools  and  implements  which 
he  is  to  use  in  the  erection  of  any  structure,  so  is  it  essential  for 
a  man,  who  would  build  to  himself  a  name,  to  be  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  instruments  which  he  has  to  use  in  his  pro 
jected  work.  These  instruments  are  his  natural  powers  and 
capacities  ;  his  talents  and  tastes ;  his  passions  and  prejudices  ; 
his  abilities,  mental  and  physical.  And  the  only  means,  by 
which  he  can  become  acquainted  with  them,  is  a  perfect  knowl 
edge  and  understanding  of  himself.  That  a  knowledge  of  others 
is  important,  is  generally  conceded.  Hence  the  common  remark 
that  such  an  one  "  will  make  his  way  through  the  world  because 
he  understands  men,"  or  that  such  an  one  "  will  never  succeed 
because  he  knows  nothing  of  human  nature."  Such  remarks  are 
founded  on  experience  and  justified  by  observation.  They  are 
not  always  made,  however,  with  the  consciousness  or  reflection 
that  the  surest  means  of  knowing  others  is  to  know  oneself. 
The  best  way  for  any  one  to  become  acquainted  with  human 
nature  is  to  become  acquainted  with  the  workings  of  his  own 
mind.  He  that  understands  himself  well,  will  not  fail  to  under 
stand  mankind.  The  door  that  opens  the  way  to  a  knowledge 
of  human  nature,  stands  at  every  one's  own  breast ;  let  him  who 
would  enter  "  knock  and  it  sha^l  be  opened  unto  him."  But  this 
knowledge  of  which  I  speak  embraces  a  great  deal  more.  It 
unfolds  to  him  who  makes  its  acquisition  his  study,  the  secret 
springs  of  his  own  action.  It  discloses  those  motives  by  which 
the  conduct  is  governed,  and  by  which  the  character  is  formed 
and  moulded.  It  makes  known  to  one  his  errors,  weaknesses,  and 
frailties  ;  all  of  which  a  wise  man  will  endeavor  fully  to  compre 
hend  and  understand.  He  that  would  be  "timely  wise"  rather 
than  "  wise  in  time,"  should  make  it  his  business  to  know  his  own 
imperfections  before  they  be  discovered  by  others.  He  should  be 
as  ful\y  conscious  of  what  he  cannot  perform  as  what  he  can. 
And  he  should  be  as  fully  aware  of  his  defects  as  of  his  excel 
lences  ;  of  his  demerits  as  of  his  merits. 

There  is  nothing  from  which  the  mind  so  generally  shrinks 
as  from  this  sort  of  examination.  I  therefore  urge  it  as  a  matter 
of  primary  importance.  Men  are  often  so  blinded  to  their  own 
errors  and  defects,  that  they  become  offended  with  those  who  are 
so  adventurous  as  even  to  intimate  their  existence.  Of  all  frail 
ties,  this  is  the  most  common  and  the  most  lamentable.  For  all 
men  have  their  errors  in  judgment  and  in  action.*  And  how  can 
these  errors  be  corrected  without  their  being  known  ?  The  object 
of  every  man  should  be  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances 
to  "  see  himself  as  others  see  him ;"  and  to  know  from  his  knowl 
edge  of  his  own  mental  and  moral  constitution,  what  would  be 
his  views,  feelings,  and  inclinations,  under  an  entire  change  of 
condition  and  situation  from  that  in  which  he  may  happen  to  be 
placed  How  few  ever  attain  this  knowledge!  A  striking 


368      ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES. 

illustration  of  the  want  of  it,  we  have  in  the  character  of  one 
who  figures  in  sacred  history. 

When  Elisha  the  prophet  approached  Damascus,  Benhadad, 
the  King  of  Syria,  sent  Hazael  as  a  messenger  to  meet  him,  and 
to  inquire  whether  he  should  recover  from  a  disease  with  which 
he  was  afflicted ;  the  inquiry  was  answered,  "  apd  the  man  of  God 
wept !" 

Whereupon  Hazael  said,  "Why  weepeth  my  Lord?"  Elisha 
knowing  that  this  man  in  the  change  of  fortune  which  awaited 
him  would,  after  the  death  of  Benhadad,  be  King  of  Syria, 
replied,  because  he  knew  the  evil  that  he  would  do  the  people  of 
Israel ;  their  strongholds  he  would  set  on  fire  ;  their  young  men 
he  would  slay  with  the  sword,  and  that  he  would  spare  neither 
helpless  mothers  nor  infant  children.  Hazael  swelling  with  in 
dignation  at  such  an  imputation  said,  "But  what?  Is  thy  ser 
vant  a  dog  that  he  should  do  this  great  thing  ?" 

Hazael  was  ignorant  of  his  own  nature !  All  these  things 
which  he  then  considered  as  so  enormous  and  monstrous  that  no 
man,  who  was  not  as  mean  in  his  estimation  as  a  vile  dog,  would 
do,  he  afterward  did !  And  how  many  thousands  of  people  are 
to  be  met  with  who  are  just  as  ignorant  of  themselves  as  Hazael 
was  of  himself  ?  What  changes  do  we  not  often  see  in  the  con 
duct  of  men  with  a  change  in  their  condition,  position,  fortune,  or 
prospects  ?  How  few  can  bear  success  ?  How  many  sustain 
themselves  gallantly  under  adversit}^  but  make  shipwreck  with 
the  first  gales  of  prosperity  ?  Young  gentlemen,  the  cause  of  this 
is  attributable  in  part  to  the  want  of  that  knowledge  to  which  I 
refer.  "  Know  thyself"  is  a  maxim  which  has  been  handed  down 
from  the  schools  of  Grecian  philosophy.  It  is  time-honored. 
Let  it  be  fixed  in  your  memory,  and  never  forget  that  it  is  essen 
tial  for  every  man  to  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  his  own 
mind  and  the  principles  by  which  it  is  governed,  who  would  direct 
that  mind  to  the  achievement  of  great  ends.  .  "9  ' 

Next  to  self-knowledge  is  self-government.  The  first  of  these 
is  necessary  to  the  second.  By  the  first  a  man  becomes  acquainted 
with  the  elements  or  powers  with  which  he  is  naturally  endowed, 
and  by  the  second  he  is  enabled  to  control  those  powers  most 
efficiently  toward  the  accomplishment  of  any  purpose  he  may  desire. 

The,  utility  of  self-knowledge  consists,  mainly,  in  furnishing 
that  information  which  enables  its  possessor  to  suppress  his  pas 
sions,  to  curb  his  propensities,  to  control  his  prejudices,  to  correct 
his  errors,  to  guard  his  weak  points,  and  to  cultivate  and  im 
prove  his  virtues.  To  do  these  things  is  the  office  of  self- 
government. 

It  is  this  thorough  discipline  or  mastery  of  a  man  over  himself 
and  his  faculties,  whether  great  or  small,  that  enables  him  to 
marshal  all  his  resources  and  to  put  forth  all  his  energies  to  the 
greatest  advantage  on  every  occasion.  This  is  no  small  matter. 
But  its  importance  in  all  the  vocations  of  life  can  never  be  over- 


ADDRESS    BEFORE   THE    EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES.     369 

estimated.  It  implies  system,  method,  arrangement,  and  prepa 
ration  in  all  things.  It  is  to  a  man,  with  the  instruments  of 
action  subject  to  his  control,  what  military  discipline  is  to  a 
general  with  veteran  troops  under  his  command. 

A  few  trained  bands,  will  put  to  route  whole*  armies  of  un 
disciplined  and  ungoverned  raw  recruits.  And  in  the  conflicts 
and  struggles  of  life,  the  well  prepared,  self-poised  man,  with  all 
his  forces  properly  arrayed  and  promptly  obedient  to  his  call,  will 
often  vanquish  and  utterly  demolish  a  negligent  and  unguarded 
rival  of  vastly  superior  natural  powers. 

This  one  idea  of  self-government,  or  thorough  mental  discipline, 
is  suggestive  of  thoughts  enough  to  occupy  more  of  your  time 
than  I  have  alloted  for  all  I  intend  to  say.  Without  it  genius  can 
effect  nothing.  Without  it  the  powers  of  the  greatest  intellects 
can  never  be  brought  to  act  efficiently  for  the  accomplishment  of 
any  great  or  useful  purpose.  We  may  look  upon  such  minds, 
and  some  such  are  to  be  met  with,  as  we  contemplate  great  un 
controlled  powers  of  nature.  What  a  mighty  waste  of  water  we 
behold  at  Niagara  ?  There  we  see  power  sufficient,  under  proper 
control  and  direction,  to  turn  the  machinery  of  the  world ;  but, 
without  it,  calculated  only  to  excite  our  amazement  and  wonder. 
So  with  the  greatest  geniuses ;  without  control,  discipline,  and 
self-government,  their  powers  may  dazzle,  may  excite  admiration 
and  astonishment,  but  that  is  all.  They  seldom  effect  any  thing 
really  good  or  useful. 

Another  of  those  requisites,  deemed  essential  to  honorable  suc 
cess,  is  integrity  of  principle.  This  implies  uprightness  in  all 
things,  in  thought  as  well  as  in  action.  This  is  the  granite  for 
mation,  on  which  true  greatness  rests.  This  is  the  primitive 
rock  that  lies  beneath  the  upper  strata  of  character.  And  in  the 
man  of  true  worth  and  real  merit,  it  will  never  fail  to  show  itself 
when  he  is  thoroughly  probed,  wherever  his  lot  may  be  cast, 
whether  in  the  lowest  valleys  or  on  the  highest  mountains  of  this 
world's  places  of  humility  or  distinction.  Character  to  be  endur 
ing  should  be  based  upon  truth,  justice,  and  honesty.  By  these 
principles  the  man  of  integrity  is  governed  in  all  his  dealings  and 
intercourse  with  men.  There  is  with  him  no  duplicity,  no  equiv 
ocation,  and  none  of  those  crafty  wiles  which  mark  the  cunning, 
the  deceitful,  and  the  disingenuous.  He  is  open,  frank,  and  candid 
in  all  matters.  In  his  estimation  the  standard  of  virtue  is  the 
standard  of  honor,  and  every  thing  that  does  not  square  by  this 
rule  is  not  only  low  and  mean,  but  corrupt  and  contaminating. 
He  would  rather  fall  in  the  maintenance  of  the  right,  than  enjoy 
an  ill-gotten  success  in  the  wrong.  For  there  is  a  divinity  within 
which  tells  him  that : 

"Truth  crushed  to  earth  will  rise  again ; 

Th'  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers  ! 
But  error  wounded,  writhes  with  pain, 
And  dies  amidst  her  worshippers  !" 
24 


370     ADDEESS   BEFOEE  THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES. 

Times  may  change  but  he  does  not  change  with  them.  He  is  the 
same  in  prosperity  and  adversity.  The  severest  tests  only 
prove  the  unswerving  steadiness  with  which  he  pursues  his  pur 
pose.  Such  a  man  can  never  be  seduced  by  flattery  or  awed  by 
power. 

Many  instances  in  illustration  of  this  principle  and  element  in 
character  might  be  given.  Two  that  occur  to  me,  and  which  are 
familiar,  perhaps,  to  many  who  hear  me,  may  not  be  inappropriate. 
One  is  the  memorable  reply  of  Lord  Coke  to  James  I.,  King  of 
England.  This  monarch  commenced  that  series  of  usurpations 
which  rendered  his  House  so  ingloriously  distinguished,  by 
attempting  to  control  the  decision  of  the  judges  in  a  matter  per 
taining  to  his  prerogative,  by  extorting  a  promise,  in  advance,  that 
their  decision  should  be  as  he  desired  it.  For  this  purpose  they 
were  brought  before  the  king  in  person.  Upon  the  direct  ques 
tion  whether  they  would  so  decide,  all  the  judges  except  Coke, 
yielding  to  the  weakness  of  human  nature,  in  the  presence  of  that 
sovereignty  from  whom  they  held  their  places,  answered  readily 
in  the  affirmative.  When  the  question  was  put  to  him,  he 
replied:  "  When  the  case  happens,  I  shall  do  that  which  it  shall 
be  jit  for  a  judge  to  do  /" 

All  his  associates,  and  even  the  king,  were  abashed  and  hu 
miliated  by  the  stern  and  independent  language  of  the  chief 
justice. 

The  other  instance  occurred  in  the  reign  of  James  II.  Insti 
gated  by  the  same  love  of  power  and  disregard  of  the  well 
settled  rights  of  the  people  that  had  marked  the  course  of  his 
predecessors,  this  king  was  endeavoring  to  subvert  the  religion 
of  the  realm.  His  ever  to  be  remembered  Declaration  of  Indul 
gence  notorious^  against  law,  and  particularly  offensive  to  all 
Protestants,  had  not  only  been  made  public  by  the  royal  procla 
mation,  but,  by  orders  in  council,  had-  been  directed  to  be  read 
in  each  church  and  chapel  by  the  officiating  minister,  on  particu 
lar  days,  named,  before  the  regular  service.  Never  was  greater 
commotion  produced  in  that  kingdom  by  any  State  paper  than 
that  wkich  was  produced  by  this  mandate  of  James.  All  classes 
were  struck  with  consternation.  The  bishops  in  body  petitioned 
and  remonstrated.  The  king  was  unyielding  and  inexorable. 
To  disobey  was  to  incur  the  royal  displeasure  with  all  its  conse 
quences,  while  to  obey  would  be  a  violation  of  their  sense  of  duty 
.to  their  Church  and  to  their  God  !  The  20th  of  May,  1688— a 
day  which  will  never  be  forgotten  by  the  readers  of  the  annals 
of  England — was  the  day  fixed  for  the  performance  of  this  ser 
vice  in  the  metropolis  of  the  empire.  All  London  was  aroused 
\,o  the  greatest  degree  of  excitement.  Thousands  flocked  to  the 
churches  to  see  what  would  be  done.  Speculation  was  rife  as  to 
the  course  the  clergy  would  pursue.  The  minions  of  the  crown 
boasted  that  no  one  would  dare  to  disobey  His  Majesty's  edict. 
It  was  on  that  day,  and  under  sugh  circumstances,  that  Samuel 


ADDRESS  BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES.      371 

Wesley,  the  father  of  John  Wesley  and  Charles  Weslej7,  ascended 
the  pulpit  before  thousands  of  people,  whose  breasts  were  beating 
with  doubtful  and  anxious  expectation.  When  all  were  in  the 
greatest  suspense  as  to  what  he  would  do,  that  venerable  divine 
rose  and  announced  in  emphatic  language,  as  his  text,  these  words  : 
"  Be  it  known  unto  thee,  oh  King,  that  we  will  not  serve  thy  gods, 
nor  worship  the  golden  image  which  thou  hast  set  up."  The 
usurpation  of  the  crown  was  defied,  and  the  integrity  of  principle 
was  vindicated  in  the  act !  Had  Samuel  Wesley  left  no  other  me 
morial  than  this,  it  was  sufficient  to  render  his  name  immortal. 
This  was  the  first  decisive  step  in  that  rapid  succession  of  move 
ments  which  drove  James  from  the  throne,  and  brought  about 
the  revolution  of  1688,  and  which  secured  the  establishment  of 
those  principles  of  English  liberty  which  enter  so  largely  into 
our  own  American  institutions.  Coke  was  one  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  of  those  who  met  with  manly  firmness  the  first  en 
croachment  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  first  of  the  Stuarts  ;  and 
Wesley  should  be  equally  distinguished  for  his  lead  in  that 
resistance  against  the  usurpations  of  the  last  of  the  same  line 
which  resulted  in  the  expulsion  of  that  house  from  power 
forever. 

But  again.  For  success  in  life,  it  is  essential  that  there  should 
be  a  fixedness  of  purpose  as  to  the  object  and  designs  to  be 
attained.  There  should  be  a  clear  conception  of  the  outlines  of 
that  character  which  is  to  be  established.  The  business  of  life, 
in  whatever  pursuit  it  may  be  directed,  is  a  great  work.  And  in 
this,  as  in  all  other  undertakings,  it  is  important  in  the  outset  to 
have  a  clear  conception  of  what  is  to  be  done.  This  is  the  first 
thing  to  be  settled.  What  profession,  what  vocation,  is  to  be 
followed.  The  only  rule  for  determining  this  is  natural  ability 
and  natural  aptitude,  or  suitableness  for  the  particular  business 
selected.  The  decision  in  such  case  should  always  be  governed 
by  that  ideal  of  character  which  a  man,  with  high  aspirations, 
should  always  form  for  himself. 

The  artist  who  has  laid  before  him  the  huge  misshapen  block 
of  marble,  from  which  the  almost  living  and  breathing  statue  is  to 
spring,  under  the  operation  of  his  chisel,  first  has  the  ideal  in  his 
mind.  The  magnificent  temple  at  Jerusalem,  with  all  its  halls 
and  porticos,  entrances,  stairways,  and  arches,  was  designed  by 
Solomon  in  all  its  grand  proportions  and  awangements,  before 
the  foundation  stone  was  laid.  The  first  thing  with  the  sculptor, 
the  architect,  or  the  painter,  is  the  grand  design.  This  being 
fixed  every  thing  afterward  is  directed  toward  its  perfect  consum 
mation.  So  it  should  be  with  the  great  work  of  life.  When  the 
course  is  determined  upon,  to  secure  the  object  in  view,  it  should 
be  steadily  pursued.  You  will  pardon  an  illustration  of  the  im 
portance  of  this  consideration  by  a  reference  to  an  incident  in  the 
life  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  men  of  our  own  country.  I 
allude  to  Mr.  Webster 


372      ADDRESS   BEFORE    THE-  EMORY    COLLEGE    SOCIETIES. 

He,  it  may  be  known  to  you,  was  the  son  of  a  New  Hampshire 
farmer  of  very  limited  means.  All  the  hopes  of  the  father  were 
centered  in  his  son.  To  put  him  through  college  was  an  object 
of  great  desire  with  him.  This  he  succeeded  in  doing,  but  not 
without  some  pecuniary  embarrassment,  as  may  be  the  case  with 
some  of  those  fathers  whom  I  now  address,  in  their  efforts  to  give 
an  education  to  some  of  these  young  gentlemen  now  about  to  leave 
this  seat  of  learning.  Before  young  Daniel  had  left  the  walls  of  his 
Alma  Mater,  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  devote  himself  to  the  law. 
For  the  first  year  after  his  graduation,  he  taught  school  for  the 
stipulated  salary  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  At  the  expi 
ration  of  that  time,  with  this  small  capital  in  hand,  he  set  out  for 
Boston  to  enter  upon  the  course  that  he  had  marked  out  for  him 
self.  He  was  admitted  as  a  student  of  law  in  the  oflice  of  a  dis 
tinguished  counsellor  in  that  city.  Soon  after,  and  while  he  was  still 
pursuing  his  studies,  the  clerkship  of  the  court  of  common  pleas 
of  his  native  county  of  Hillsboro,  in  New  Hampshire,  became 
vacant.  The  emoluments  of  that  office  were  about  fifteen  hundred 
dollars  per  annum.  Some  of  his  friends,  from  the  best  of  motives, 
no  doubt,  procured  the  appointment  for  young  Webster,  supposing 
it  would  be  very  acceptable  to  him.  The  information  was  first 
given  to  his  father,  and  he  was  requested  to  forward  it  to  his  son. 
The  father  was  delighted,  and  he  conveyed  the  intelligence  to  the 
son  in  such  language  that  left  no  doubt  of  his  earnest  desire  for  its 
prompt  acceptance.  Such  was  his  respect  for  the  feelings  of  his 
father,  that  Mr.  Webster  could  not  send  a  reply  in  writing,  but 
went  immediately,  in  person,  to  make  known  to  him  that  he  could 
not  accept  the  place.  This  he  did  by  gradually  unfolding  his 
views  and  inclinations  on  the  subject. 

"  What,"  said  the  father,  after  he  found  from  the  son's  conver 
sation  that  he  was  speaking  against  accepting  the  place  ;  "  what, 
do  you  intend  to  decline  this  office?" 

"•Most  assuredly,"  replied  the  son,  when  the  question  came 
direct,  "  I  cannot  think  of  doing  otherwise." 

The  father  at  first  seemed  angry ;  then  assuming  the  air  of  one 
who  first  feels  the  pangs  of  disappointment  in  realizing  long  cher 
ished  hopes,  he  said: 

"  Well,  my  son,  your  mother  always  said  that  you  would  come 
to  something  or  nothing;  become  a  somebody  or  a  nobody."  The 
emphasis  showed  that  he  thought  his  son  was  about  to  become  "  a 
nobody." 

The  reply  of  the  son  was :  "  I  intend,  sir,  to  use  my  tongue  in 
Court,  and  not  my  pen ;  to  be  an  actor,  and  not  the  register  of 
other  men's  actions."  Nobly  has  that  pledge  been  redeemed ! 

From  this  incident,  parents,  mothers  as  well  as  fathers,  may 
learn  a  lesson.  And  that  is  not  to  be  too  hasty  or  rash  in  coming 
to  the  conclusion  concerning  any  son,  however  headstrong  he  may 
seem,  that  he  will  ultimately  turn  out  to  be  "  a  nobody." 

The  decision  with  Webster,  though  young,  as  to  his  future 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES.     373 

course  had  been  made.  The  ideal  of  that  character  which  he  de 
sired  to  establish  had  been  formed.  And  to  the  fixedness  of  pur 
pose  with  which  he  adhered  to  it  on  that  trying  occasion,  when  the 
strongest  inducements  of  parental  entreaty  and  pecuniary  gain 
were  presented  to  divert  him  from  it,  the  world  is  indebted  for 
that  name  and  fame  which  are  the  pride  and  admiration  of  his 
countrymen,  and  that  towering  reputation  which  sends  its  light 
and  effulgence  to  the  remotest  regions  of  civilization. 

Another  example  of  the  same  principle  of  fixedness  of  purpose 
may  be  given  in  the  character  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  was  so  long 
one  of  Mr.  Webster's  most  distinguished  rivals  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  They  both  entered  life  about  the  same  time, 
though  under  very  different  circumstances:  And  the  lives  of  both 
afford  striking  illustrations  of  that  element  of  character  of  which 
I  am  now  speaking.  Mr.  Calhoun  from  his  earliest  youth  fixed 
his  mind  upon  politics.  Not  the  arts  and  tricks,  and  chicanery, 
of  the  mere  politician  or  diplomatist,  but  what  maybe  more  properly 
termed  the  science  of  government ;  the  knowledge  and  thorough 
understanding  of  those  principles  and  laws  of  human  actions 
which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  civil  society,  in  whatever  form  it 
may  be  found ;  and  the  regulations  and  modifications  of  which  are 
necessary  for  the  surest  enjoyment  of  rational  constitutional  liberty. 

In  no  branch  of  learning,  perhaps,  has  mankind  been  slower  in 
their  progress  than  in  understanding  the  true  principles  of  govern 
ment,  the  origin  of  its  necessity,  the  sanction  of  its  obligations, 
together  with  the  correlative  powers  and  duties  of  those  who  govern 
and  those  who  are  governed.  This  was  most  pointedly  demon 
strated  in  the  able,  ingenious,  and  admirable  address  which  mairy 
of  us  listened  to  with  so  much  pleasure  in  this  place  last  night. 
(The  address  of  Mr.  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar  before  the  Crescent  Society.) 

To  this  most  abstruse  subject,  which  had  engaged  so  much  of 
the  time  and  attention  of  the  profoundest  thinkers,  that  the  world 
ever  pi^duced,  the  great  Carolinian  brought  all  the  energies  of  his 
subtle  and  powerful  intellect.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  absorbing 
theme  of  his  life.  Nothing  diverted  him  from  it.  To  master  it 
was  his  object.  Nor  was  he  unequal  to  the  work  undertaken.  All 
questions  of  public  policy,  whether  in  the  cabinet  or  in  the  legisla 
tive  councils,  seem  to  have  been  considered,  examined,  and  analyzed 
by  him  according  to  the  strictest  principles  of  abstract  philosophy. 
But  his  labors  were  not  confined  to  the  consideration  and  investi 
gation  of  temporary  questions  connected  with  the  administration 
of  his  own  government.  His  objects  were  higher.  His  purposes 
were  more  comprehensive.  He  looked  to  achievements  more  per 
manent,  as  well  as  more  substantial,  than  the  acquisition  of  those 
transitory  honors  which  accompany  a  forensic  display  or  a  tri 
umphant  reply  in  debate.  To  such  an  end  his  efforts  for  years 
were  directed.  The  result  was  the  production  of  a  Treatise  or 
Disquisition,  as  he  calls  it,  on  government,  which  has  been  pub 
lished  since  his  death,  and  which,  though  it  has  as  yet  produced 


374      ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    EMORY    COLLEGE   SOCIETIES. 

but  little  sensation  in  the  public  mind,  at  no  distant  day  will  doubt 
less  be  regarded  as  the  crowning  glory  of  his  illustrious  life.  This 
treatise  has  no  particular  reference  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  But  it  discusses  the  elements  and  principles  of  all 
forms  of  government.  Reduces  them  to  system  and  the  rules  of 
science.  I  take  this  occasion  thus  to  speak  of  it  in  this  connection 
to  commend  it  to  your  careful  perusal  and  close  study.  It  ought 
to  be  a  text-book  in  all  our  schools,  and  its  principles  ought  to  be 
familiar  to  every  citizen  in  the  country — old  and  young.  In  my 
judgment  it  surpasses  every  thing  that  ever  was  produced  on  the 
same  subject,  from  Aristotle  to  Locke  and  Burke.  The  work  is 
short,  compact,  and  well  condensed,  but  clear  and  perspicuous  in 
style  and  arrangement,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  it  is  one  of  the 
few  books  of  this  age  which  will  outlive  the  language  in  which  it 
was  written. 

I  have  one  other  point  only  to  present — that  is,  energy  in  exe 
cution.  And  though  last  in  order,  it  is  far  from  being  least  in  im 
portance.  By  this  I  mean  application,  attention,  activity,  perse 
verance,  and  untiring  industry  in  that  business  or  pursuit,  whatever 
it  may  be,  which  is  undertaken.  Nothing  great  or  good  can  ever 
be  accomplished  without  labor  and  toil.  Motion  is  the  law  of 
living  nature.  Inaction  is  the  symbol  of  death,  if  it  is  not  death 
itself.  The  hugest  engines,  with  strength  and  capacity  sufficient 
to  drive  the  mightiest  ships  "  across  the  stormy  deep,"  are  utterly 
useless  without  a  moving  power.  Energy  is  the  steam  power,  the 
motive  principle  of  intellectual  capacity.  It  is  the  propelling 
force ;  and,  as  in  physics,  momentum  is  resolvable  into  quantity  of 
matter  and  velocity,  so  in  metaphysics,  the  extent  of  human  ac 
complishment  may  be  resolvable  in  the  degree  of  intellectual 
endowment  and  the  energy  with  which  it  is  directed.  A  small 
body  driven  by  a  great  force,  will  produce  a  result  equal  to,  or 
even  greater,  than  that  of  a  much  larger  body  moved  by  a  con 
siderably  less  force.  So  it  is  with  minds.  Hence  we  often  see 
men  of  comparatively  small  capacity,  by  greater  energy  alone, 
leave,  and  justly  leave,  their  superiors  in  natural  gifts  far  behind 
them  in  the  race  for  honors,  distinction,  and  preferment. 

This  is  the  real  vis  vitas  or  that  principle  in  human  nature 
which  gives  power  and  vim  to  the  efforts  of  genius  toward  what 
ever  objects  such  efforts  may  be  directed.  It  is  this  which 
imparts  that  quality  which  we  designate  by  the  very  expressive 
term  "force  of  character ;"  that  which  meets,  defies,  and  bears 
down  all  opposition.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  striking  charac 
teristic  of  those  £reat  minds  and  intellects  which  never  fail  to 
impress  their  names,  their  views,  ideas,  and  opinions  indelibly 
upon  the  history  of  the  times  in  which  they  live.  Men  of  this 
class  are  those  pioneers  of  thought,  who,  sometimes  even  "in 
advance  of  the  age,"  are  known  and*  marked  in  history  as  origin 
ators  and  discoverers,  or  those  wTho  overturn  old  orders  and 
systems  of  things  and  build  up  new  ones.  To  this  class  belong 


ADDKESS   BEFORE  THE   EMORY   COLLEGE   SOCIETIES.     375 

Columbus,  Luther,  Cromwell,  Watt,  Fulton,  Franklin,  and  Wash 
ington.  It  was  to  the  same  class  that  General  Jackson  belonged. 
He  not  only  had  a  clear  conception  of  his  purpose,  but  a  will  and 
energy  to  execute  it.  And  it  is  in  the  same  class,  or  amongst  the 
first  order  of  men,  that  Henry  Clay  will  be  assigned  a  place ; 
that  great  man  to  whom  we  have  had  such  frequent  allusion  dur 
ing  these  exercises,  and  whose  recent  loss  the  nation  still  mourns. 
Mr.  Clay's  success,  and  those  civic  achievements,  which  will  ren 
der  his  name  as  lasting  as  the  history  of  his  country,  were  the 
result  of  nothing  so  much  as  that  element  of  character  which  I 
have  denominated  energy.  Thrown  upon  life  at  an  early  age, 
without  any  means  or  resources  save  his  natural  powers  and 
abilities,  and  without  the  advantages  of  any  thing  above  a  common 
school  education,  he  had  nothing  to  rely  upon  but  himself,  and 
nothing  upon  which  to  place  a  hope  but  his  own  exertions.  But, 
fired  with  a  high  and  noble  ambition,  he  resolved,  young  as  he 
was,  and  cheerless  as  were  his  prospects,  to  meet  and  surmount 
every  embarrassment  and  obstacle  by  which  he  was  surrounded. 
His  aims  and  objects  were  high  and  worthy  the  greatest  efforts ; 
they  were  not  to  secure  the  laurels  won  upon  the  battle-field,  but 
those  wreaths  which  adorn  the  brow  of  the  wise,  the  firm,  the 
sagacious  and  far-seeing  statesman.  The  honor  and  glory  of  his 
life  was — 

"  Th'  applause  of  list'ning  senates  to  command. 
The  threats  of  pain  and  ruin  to  despise, 
To  scatter  plenty  o'er  a  smiling  land, 
And  read  7m  history  in  a  nation's  eyes  !" 

This  great  end  he  most  successfully  accomplished.  And  if  he 
had  aspirations  for  a  position,  in  his  own  estimation,  even  higher, 
yet  no  one  now,  or  hereafter,  can  ever  indulge  the  opinion  that 
its  attainment  would  have  added  anything  to  that  full  measure  of 
fame  with  which  he  has  descended  to  the  tomb !  In  his  life  and 
character  you  have  a  most  striking  example  of  what  energy  and 
indomitable  perseverance  can  do,  even  when  opposed  by  the  most 
adverse  circumstances. 

Young  gentlemen,  I  have  given  you  this  brief  sketch  of  some 
of  those  elements  of  character  which  may  be  deemed  essential  for 
success  in  those  exciting  scenes  and  uncertain  conflicts  through 
which  life's  journey  will  lead  you.  One  word,  in  conclusion,  by 
way  of  application. 

It  is  the  reply  of  Cardinal  Richelieu  upon  a  memorable  occa 
sion  as  we  have  it  in  the  play.  In  one  of  the  most  critical  points 
in  the  fortunes  of  the  cardinal,  as  well  as  of  France,  it  became  a 
matter  «of  the  utmost  importance  that  a  particular  paper  should 
be  obtained  by  him  to  be  presented  to  the  king.  The  cardinal 
was  prime  minister  as  he  had  been  for  a  number  of  years.  A  con 
spiracy  had  been  formed  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  nobles,  not 
only  against  him,  but  against  the  throne  itself.  These  nobles 


376       SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT  FRAUDS,    ETC. 

had  succeeded,  as  part  of  their  plan,  in  alienating  the  king  from  his 
minister.  The  paper  contained  the  positive  evidence  of  the  con 
spiracy  and  treachery  of  his  and  the  king's  enemies.  His  fate, 
and  the  fate  of  his  sovereign,  depended  upon  his  getting  imme 
diate  possession  of  the  paper.  He  was  a  man  of  energy,  and  had 
never  before  been  thwarted  or  unsuccessful  in  any  enterprise. 
For  years  he  had  ruled  France  with  almost  absolute  sway.  At 
this  juncture,  when  nothing  could  save  his  fortune  but  the  paper 
in  question,  Richelieu  called  to  his  assistance  a  young  man  of 
spirit  and  courage,  and  enjoined  upon  him  the  arduous  and  diffi 
cult  task  of  securing  and  bringing  to  him  the  packet.  But  the 
young  man,  being  duly  impressed  with  the  importance  of  his  mis 
sion,  and  providing  in  his  mind  for  the  various  contingencies  that 
might  happen,  says  "  If  I  fail " — 

Richelieu,  not  allowing  the  sentence  to  be  finished,  and  stop 
ping  the  utterance  of  a  possibility  of  a  doubt  touching  his  success, 
replies : 

"Fail!  Fail! 

In  the  lexicon  of  yoinh,  which  Fate  reserves 
For  a  bright  manhoud,  there  is  no  such  word 
As— fail  /" 

So  say  I  to  you  in  entering  upon  that  career  that  lies  before 
you.  If,  at  any  time,  fears  and  doubts  beset  you  as  to  your  suc 
cess.  If  the  world  grows  cold.  If  friends  forsake  and  enemies 
combine.  If  difficulties  multiply,  and  even  environ  you.  If  the 
future  assume  its  darkest  robes  without  a  ray  of  light  or  hope. 
Never  despair.  Never  give  up.  Banish  your  apprehensions. 
Rely  upon  yourselves.  And  recollect  that  to  the  man  who  knows 
himself  thoroughly,  who  governs  himself  properly,  who  stands 
firmly  on  principle,  who  has  a  fixed  purpose  to  do  something 
worthy  of  future  remembrance,  and  who  applies  himself  with 
energy  in  its  execution,  there  is  no  such  word  as  fail ! 


SPEECH  ON  THE  BILL  TO  PREVENT  FRAUDS  UPON 
THE  TREASURY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES— IN 
DEFENCE  OF  MR.  CORWIN— AND  THE  GALPHIN 
CLAIM. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JANUARY  13,  1853. 

The  bill  under  consideration,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  reported*  by  the 
Select  Committee  of  this  House  appointed  to  investigate  the 
Gardiner  claim.  I  do  not  see  any  connection  which  it  has  with 
the  business  submitted  to  that  committee.  It  seems  to  be  before 
the  House  anomalously.  I  suppose  it  must  have  got  here  by 


SPEECH   OX   THE    BILL   TO   PREVENT   FKAUDS,    ETC.        377 

unanimous  consent.  The  committee  certainly  had  no  authority 
from  this  House  to  report  it.  So  far  as  the  bill,  therefore,  is 
concerned,  I  shall  treat  it  as  an  independent  measure  before  this 
House,  as  if  reported  by  any  individual,  and  I  shall  not  connect 
its  merits  with  the  investigation  of  the  Gardiner  claim,  for  I  see 
no  legitimate  connection  between  it  and  the  subject  referred  to 
that  committee  for  investigation.  The  bill,  I  believe,  is  in  sub 
stance  the  same  as  one  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  a  Senator 
from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  BADGER].  In  the  remarks  which  I 
shall  make  upon  its  merits,  I  shall  necessarily,  in  noticing  the 
topics  of  discussion  which  it  has  given  rise  to,  introduce  some 
of  the  subjeets  which  the  gentleman  have  alluded  to  in  the  pro 
gress  of  the  debate.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  OLDS,]  for 
instance,  who,  I  believe,  addressed  the  committee  first  upon  this 
subject,  and  whose  speech  is  reported  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Globe  of  this  morning,  seems  to  consider  the  report  of  this  bill 
by  that  committee  as  confirming  his  original  remarks  in  relation 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Corwin.  I  do  not  so  con 
sider  it.  I  do  not  consider  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  report 
of  the  committee  which  can  justify  such  an  inference.  I  take  this 
occasion  to  state  to  this  House  that  I  think  the  investigation  and 
report  of  that  committee  fully  and  completely  exonerates  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from  that  improper  connection  with 
the  Gardiner  claim  which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  OLDS] 
seemed  to  entertain  the  opinion  or  suspicion  that  he  held.  I 
notice  the  following  in  the  report  of  the  gentleman's  remarks, 
and  I  shall  be  brief  upon  this  point : 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  1  will  not  say  that  at  the  time  I  offered  the  resolution 
calling  for  this  committee  of  investigation,  that  I  had  not  a  settled  con 
viction  upon  my  mind,  that  Corwin  must  have  known,  or  at  least  have 
strongly  suspected,  the  fraudulent  character  of  this  claim.  That  convic 
tion  has  not  been  changed,  but  greatly  confirmed,  by  the  evidence  re 
ported  by  the  committee.  But,  sir,  notwithstanding  these  convictions,  I 
had  no  purpose  of  making  any  such  charge  in  the  resolution,  knowing 
the  utter  impossibility  of  proving  a  man's  thoughts  or  impressions. 
Nothing  in  the  language  of  the  resolution,  or  in  the  remarks  with  which  1 
accompanied  the  resolution,  can  be  construed  into  such  a  charge." 

Now,  sir,  I  have  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  as  made  before 
this  House,  in  which  he  says  : 

"  Through  the  investigation  of  Congress,  their  Galphinism  has  been  ex 
posed  ;  and  Crawford,  loaded  with  the  execrations  of  the  American  people, 
has  received  his  passport  to  perpetual  infamy.  But  Corwin  still  remains 
unwhipped  of  justice.  True,  sir,  his  catspaw  and  accomplice  in  the  fraud 
is  loaded  with  irons,  arid  is  branded  by  public  sentiment  as  a  perjurer  and 
forger  ;  but  the  master-moving  spirit,  the  head  and  brains  in  the  fraud, 
through  the  negligence  of  this  House,  is  still  permitted  to  control  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  OLDS.  That  is  a  quotation  from  a  speech  made  in  July 
upon  entirely  another  question,  in  which  I  referred  incidentally 


378        SPEECH   ON"  THE  BILL   TO   PEE  VENT  FKAUDS,   ETC. 

to  the  Galphinism  of  the  country.  It  had  no  connection  with  this 
resolution  whatever. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  These  were  remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  in 
connection  with  this  subject.  Is  he  prepared  now  before  the 
House  to  say  that  he  takes  this  expression  back  ? 

Mr.  OLDS.  No,  sir.  I  say  that  the  remarks  I  made  at  the  time 
I  offered  this  resolution,  show  that  I  intended  to  make  no  such 
call  upon  the  House  for  investigation. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then,  if  the  gentlemen  does  not  take  them  back, 
or  modify  them,  he  should  make  them  good.  They  were  remarks 
made  by  him  in  this  House  and  to  the  country  before  this  com 
mittee  was  raised,  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  raising  the  committee, 
though  they  may  not  have  been  made  at  the  time  the  committee 
was  ordered.  Now,  then,  the  gentleman  ought  either  to  sustain 
this  charge  before  the  House,  or  modify  it.  I  must  consider  it 
as  a  part  of  the  remarks  made  by  him,  which  induced  the  House 
to  raise  the  committee.  This  was  the  gist  of  the  accusation.  It 
is  not  my  purpose  at  all  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  Gardiner 
claim ;  that  is,  whether  it  was  founded  in  justice,  or  whether  it 
was  a. fabricated  fraud  from  beginning  to  end.  That  was  not 
even  before  the  investigation  committee.  I  am  free  to  state,  how 
ever,  from  reading  the  report  of  4his  investigation  carefully,  I 
concur  with  the  other  gentlemen,  that  my  impression  is  that  it  is 
fraudulent.  But  the  subject  referred  to  that  committee  to  in 
vestigate,  and  which,  so  far  as  their  report  is  concerned,  is  now 
before  the  House,  is  his  (Mr.  Corwin's)  "  improper"  connection 
with  the  claim  ;  because  the  very  resolution  offered  by  the  gentle 
man,  and  passed  by  this  House,  stated  that — 

"  Whereas  a  strong  suspicion  rests  upon  the  public  mind  that  fraudu 
lent  claims  have  been  allowed  by  the  late  Mexican  Claim  Commission, 
with  one  of  which  it  is  suspected  that  Thomas  Corwin,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  has  been  improperly  connected:  Therefore, 

"Resolved;  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  five  members  of  this  House, 
be  appointed  by  the  Speaker,  to  investigate  all  the  facts  touching  the 
connection  of  the  said  Thomas  Corwin,  the  present  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  with  the  said  Gardiner  claim;  what  fee,  if  any,  he  was  to 
receive  for  his  services  as  agent  or  counsel  for  said  Gardiner ;  what 
interest,  if  any,  other  than  his  fee  interest,  he  purchased  and  held,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  said  claim,  and  the  amount  paid,  or  stipulated 
to  be  paid  therefor,  and  condition  of  such  purchase ;  at  what  time  he 
ceased  to  act  as  the  counsel  or  agent  of  said  Gardiner  ;  to  whom  and  for 
what  consideration  he  disposed  of  his  fee  interest ;  to  whom  and  for  what 
consideration  he  disposed  of  his  one  fourth  interest  in  said  claim." 

The  only  question,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  report  of  that  com 
mittee  is  concerned,  is,  whether  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
was  improperly  connected  with  the  claim  of  which  there  was  a 
suspicion  of  fraud  attached  to  it.  That  is  the  only  question. 
Well,  sir,  does  not  this  report  of  the  committee,  raised  at  the 
instance  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  sufficiently  show  to  us  and 


SPEECH   OX  THE   BILL   TO   PEE  VENT  FRAUDS,  ETC.       371) 

to  the  country,  that  there  was  no  improper  connection  at  all  on 
the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasu^  with  the  claim  ?  The 
gentleman  from  Ohio  attempts  to  argue  not ;  and  the  whole  of  his 
speech  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  censure  upon  the  committee  that  was 
raised  at  his  own  instance  ;  at  least  it  so  struck  me.  He  seemed 
to  be  grumbling  at  their  conclusion.  What  is  that  conclusion  of 
the  committee  on  the  real  point  in  issue  ?  Here  is  their  language  : 

"No  testimony  has  been  adduced  before  the  committee  proving,  or 
tending  to  prove,  that  the  Hon.  Thomas  Corwin  had  any  knowledge  that 
the  claim  of  the  said  Gardiner  was  fraudulent,  or  that  false  testimony  or 
forged  papers  had  been  or  were  to  be  procured  to  sustain  the  same." 

The  testimony  before  the  committee  shows  conclusively  that 
Mr.  Corwin  had  no  interest  whatever  in  this  claim  after  he  be 
came  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  and  the  committee  say  that 
there  is  no  evidence  showing,  "  or  tending  to  show,"  that  even  as  a 
private  citizen,  in  his  vocation  as  an  attorney,  he  knew  any  thing  at 
all  of  the  fraud.  There  is  nothing  then  connecting  Mr.  Corwin 
improperly  with  the  claim.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  the  com 
mittee  have  reported  this  bill.  Now  it  is  to  that  point  that  I 
wrish  to  speak  briefly,  because  this  bill  was  not  reported  by  any 
authority  conferred  on  the  committee,  nor  does  it  touch  the  case 
before  them.  I  do  not  intend  to  let  the  gentleman  escape  in  this 
way.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  this  fact,  that  if  Mr. 
Corwin,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  had  been  improperly  con 
nected  with  this  claim — as  was  intimated  in  the  original  charge 
— there  would  have  been  no  necessity  at  all  for  any  special  bill 
to  reach  his  delinquency. 

Sir,  the  founders  of  our  government,  in  one  of  the  first  acts 
passed  by  Congress,  after  the  organization  of  the  government, 
sufficiently  protected  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  in  this 
particular.  If  Mr.  Corwin  acted  improperly,  you  need  pass  no 
new  law  for  others  ;  you  can  now  prosecute  him,  and  visit  upon 
him  the  punishment  he  deserves ;  you  need  not  let  him  pass  from 
defect  of  the  law.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  act 
creating  the  Treasury  Department  in  1789  to  show  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  this  bill  to  meet  any  future  case  similar  to  that 
then  before  the  committee.  I  read  the  eighth  section  of  that  act : 

"  SEO.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  person  appointed  to  any 
office  instituted  by  this  act  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  be  concerned  or 
interested  in  carrying  on  the  business  of  trade  or  commerce,  or  be  owner, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  of  any  sea  vessel,  or  purchase,  by  himself  or  another 
in  trust  for  him,  any  public  lands  or  other  public  property,  or  be  con 
cerned  in  the  purchase  or  disposal  of  any  public  securities  of  any  State  or 
of  the  United  States,  or  take  or  apply  to  his  own  use  or  emolument  or 
gain,  for  negotiating  or  transacting  any  business  in  the  said  Department 
other  than  what  shall  be  allowed  by  law  ;  and  if  any  person  shall  offend 
against  any  of  the  prohibitions  of  this  act,  he  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
high  misdemeanor,  and  forfeit  to  the  United  States  the  penalty  of  $3,000, 
and  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  removed  from  office,  and  forever  thereafter 
incapable  of  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States,"  etc. 


380       SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,  ETC. 

Sir,  if  Mr.  Corwin,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was  "improp 
erly  connected"  with  this  claim  against  the  treasury,  as  charged, 
here  is  a  law  of  the  country  that  has  been  in  existence  since  1789, 
under  which  you  can  proceed  against  him,  and  by  which  you  can 
not  only  displace  him,  but  disgrace  him  forever.  If,  therefore, 
the  committee  undertook  to  recommend  this  bill  to  meet  Mr. 
Corwin's  case,  I  beg  to  inform  them,  and  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio,  that  their  work  is  but  an  act  of  supererogation.  Here  is  a 
law  quite  sufficient  for  them  or  him  to  act  upon.  My  object,  sir, 
is  to  disconnect  this  bill,  upon  which  I  intend  to  speak  hereafter, 
entirely  from  the  matter  and  case  referred  to  that  committee. 
But  I  wish  to  premise  a  few  remarks  upon  the  facts  reported  by 
that  committee,  and  which  have  been  commented  on  in  the 
debate. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  these  facts  are,  that  Mr.  Corwin,  while  he 
was  a  Senator  of  the  United  States,  was  employed  as  an  attorney 
before  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  adjudicate  claims  against 
Mexico  in  behalf  of  Gardiner,  a  claimant,  and  that  he  also  took  an 
interest  by  assignment  in  his  claim.  These  facts  are  admitted. 
The  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  JOHNSON,]  argued  yesterday 
that  it  was  malum  in  se  ;  that  it  was  wrong  in  itself  for  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  to  appear  as  an  attorney  for  fee  or  reward  before 
any  such  tribunal.  Is  that  gentleman  right  in  that  position  ?  If 
he  is,  Mr.  Corwin  did  something  wrong  in  itself,  and  deserves 
censure.  If  not,  he  is  certainly  above  reproach  of  even  the  most 
fastidious  in  what  he  did.  Let  us  refer  to  our  history  on  this 
subject.  Every  gentleman  who  hears  me  knows  that  it  is  usual, 
and  has  been  from  the  beginning  of  this  government,  for  Senators 
and  members  of  the  House  to  appear  as  counsel  for  fee  and 
reward  or  compensation  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  to  appear  before  any  of  the  courts  of  the  Union,  and  before 
commissioners  appointed  to  adjudicate  claims  similar  to  these — 
before  just  such  tribunals  as  this  was.  Nay,  more ;  I  believe 
that  even  anterior  to  our  Revolution,  Dr.  Franklin  did  not  con 
sider  it  malum  in  se  to  receive  fees  and  act  as  agent  for  several 
of  the  colonies  before  the  proper  departments  of  the  government 
of  the  mother  county — Great  Britain.  He  was  the  regular 
agent,  first  of  Pennsylvania,  then  of  Massachusetts,  and  of 
Georgia,  perhaps  others  of  the  colonies.  I  maintain,  therefore, 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  thing  itself  which,  by  the  general  con 
sent  of  our  countrymen,  even  the  wisest  and  the  best,  is,  or  has  been 
considered,  wrong  in  acting  as  counsel  or  attornej7",  or  agent  for 
proper  compensation  in  such  a  capacity.  I  believe  it  is  a  histor 
ical  fact,  that  after  the  Jay  treaty,  there  was  a  commission  insti 
tuted  for  the  adjudication  and  settlement  of  claims  provided  for  in 
that  treaty,  and  that  the  ablest  attorneys  in  the  country  at  that 
time,  appeared  before  the  board  thus  constituted — amongst  them 
members  of  Congress. 

Again,  at  the  close  of  the  last  war  with  England,  under  a  con- 


SPEECH    ON    THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,  ETC.       381 

vention,  a  similar  board  was  constituted.  The  celebrated  Mr. 
Pinkney,  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  a  distinguished  member  of 
this  body — an  honor  to  his  State,  and  an  honor  to  his  country — a 
man  whose  eloquence  was  perhaps  never  surpassed — a  man  whose 
integrity  never  was  questioned,  so  far  as  I  know — he,  sir,  ap 
peared,  as  I  am  informed,  before  that  commission,  and  argued 
important  cases  as  attorney  for  parties  in  interest.  Who  ever 
heard  his  conduct  questioned  ?  Who  ever  heard  an  imputation 
cast  upon  his  character,  for  thus  advocating  the  rights  of  those 
who  sought  the  aid  of  his  legal  counsel  ?  I  give  him  as  one  in 
stance  amongst  others.  But  further  still,  I  have  a  paper  before 
me  from  which  it  appears  that  the  Hon.  George  M.  Dallas,  while 
he  was  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  received  fees  for  pro 
secuting,  with  others,  a  claim  before  one  of  the  departments — 
others  were  engaged  with  him  in  the  same  case,  members  of 
Congress  of  the  highest  character  and  the  strictest  purity.  How 
can  men  thus  employed  be  said  to  be  employed  against  the  Trea 
sury  of  the  United  States  ?  In  most  instances,  the  only  question 
is,  who  among  several  claimants  shall  receive  a  particular  fund? 

But,  sir,  I  come  down  even  to  this  very  tribunal  before  which 
Senator  Corwin  agreed  to  appear  as  counsel.  He  was  not 
the  only  member  of  Congress  who  appeared  or  agreed  to  ap 
pear  there  as  counsel.  And  if  there1  was  any  thing  improper 
in  his  connection  with  it,  was  it  not  so  with  other  members  of 
Congress  ?  Mark  you,  I  do  not  allude  to  these  facts  by  way  of 
casting  imputations  upon  any  of  the  gentlemen  whom  I  shall 
name,  but  I  do  n6t  intend,  sitting  here  in  this  hall,  to  permit  a 
false  impression  to  go  before  this  country,  or  that  Mr.  Corwin, 
who  is  a  distinguished  lawyer,  shall  be  made  a  scape-goat  of  by 
any  gentleman  upon  this  floor.  Mark  you,  that  the  whole  charge 
sustained  is,  that  Mr.  Corwin,  while  a  Senator,  was  employed  by 
Dr.  Gardiner  to  represent  his  claim  as  one  amongst  other  law 
yers  before  the  Board  of  Commissioners.  For  the  testimony  is 
conclusive  that,  perhaps,  knowing  the  statute  of  1789,  which  I 
have  read,  if  from  no  other  consideration,  he  disconnected  him 
self  from  that  relation  before  he  assumed  the  position  of  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  OLDS]  says  that  the  transfer 
of  his  interest  was  all  a  farce.  Well,  if  so,  the  issue  is  between 
him  and  his  committee.  They  do  not  report  that  it  was  a  farce, 
that  it  was  an  unconditional  transfer  of  all  his  interest  in  the 
claim.  I  am  bound,  therefore,  so  to  consider  it.  Well,  then,  sir, 
was  Mr.  Corwin  the  only  distinguished  Senator  who  appeared  as 
counsel  before  that  Commission  ?  I  have  not  seen  the  docket, 
but  I  speak  from  information  which  has  been  communicated  to 
me,  and  which  I  have  no  doubt  is  correct.  I  am  informed  that 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Missouri  [Colonel  BENTON]  ap 
peared  in  a  case  there.  I  am  informed  that  the  honorable  Se 
nator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  SOULE]  appeared  in  a  case  there.  I 


382        SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL   TO   PllEVENT  FRAUDS,  ETC. 

believe  that  the  honorable  Daniel  Webster  appeared  as  counsel 
there  in  two  cases.  The  honorable  Mr.  BRIGHT,  a  Senator  from 
Indiana,  appeared  there  also  in  four  cases,  as  I  am  informed. 
Whether  those  gentlemen  appeared  for  fee  or  reward,  I  do  not 
know.  I  come  now  to  this  House ;  and  mark  me  again,  that  I 
do  not  intend  to  cast  any  imputation  upon  any  gentleman,  be 
cause  I  do  not  consider  myself  that  there  was  any  wrong  in  it. 
There  was  no  law  against  it,  and  it  had  been  the  custom  of  the 
country  from  the  beginning  for  men  holding  such  positions  to 
act  in  such  capacity.  But  I  am  informed  that  the  honorable  Mr. 
HOWARD,  of  Texas,  appeared  before  that  Commission  in  behalf  of 
some  claimants.  The  honorable  Mr.  EWING,  of  Tennessee,  who 
was  then,  but  not  now,  a  member  of  this  House,  appeared  there 
as  counsel,  or  represented  some  party,  as  I  am  told.  The  hon 
orable  Mr.  PHELPS,  of  this  House,  did  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  PHELPS.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  is  mistaken  in  rela 
tion  to  that  matter. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  sir,  I  shall  be  glad  to  be  corrected.  I 
only  speak  from  information  received  from  others,  as  I  have 
stated. 

Mr.  PHELPS.  Permit  me,  then,  to  make  a  brief  statement. 
When  the  Mexican  commission  assembled,  one  of  my  constitu 
ents  handed  me  his  memorial,  with  the  request  that  I  would  send 
it  to  the  commission  with  the  proofs  accompanying  it.  I  did  so 
send  it.  My  constituents  then  desired  me  to  appear  before  the 
commission,  if  necessary,  and  attend  to  the  case.  Action  was 
had  upon  the  case,  but  I  never  appeared  before  the  commission. 
I  only  inquired  of  one  of  the  commissioners  what  action  had 
been  had  upon  it.  I  received  no  compensation  for  it  whatever. 
I  attended  to  the  business  as  I  would  attend  to  any  other  busi 
ness  of  my  constituents.  But  I  do  not  appear  as  counsel  in 
the  case.  t 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Tennessee.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Missouri  this  question  :  Did  you  ever  receive  any  compensation 
for  your  action  before  this  commission  ? 

Mr.  PHELPS.  I  did  not  appear  before  that  board  at  all,  nor  did 
I  receive  any  compensation  for  filing  the  memorial. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  As  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  has  mentioned 
my  name  in  this  connection,  I  desire  to  state  that  two  constitu 
ents  of  mine  sent  cases  to  me  which  I  filed  before  the  board.  I 
presented  them,  however,  without  having  exacted  or  received  any 
compensation. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Texas 
did  appear  before  the  board,  but  received  no  compensation 
for  it. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  will  state  that  I  received  petitions  and  papers 
made  out,  some  of  which  I  corrected,  one  petition  I  redrafted,  and 
signed  them.  The  witnesses  are  unimpeached,  and  they  swear 
as  counsel,  and  presented  them  before  the  board,  but  I  never 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PKEVENT  FRAUDS,    ETC.      383 

received  any  compensation  nor  charged  any.  I  have  never 
charged  or  received  any  pay  for  business  to  which  I  here  attend 
to  before  the  departments. 

While  I  am  up,  however,  I  will  state  that  I  do  not  myself  con 
sider  an  appearance  before  such  a  board  as  any  thing  improper 
in  itself.  I  agreed  to  this  report,  however,  because  I  think  it  is 
better  for  the  representatives  and  the  country  that  members  of 
Congress  should  not  appear  before  such  commissions,  and  not 
because  I  considered  such  an  appearance  as  any  thing  improper 
in  itself.  I  shall  take  occasion  to  state  my  reasons  for  this 
opinion  before  the  debate  closes. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  What  I  was  informed,  then,  is  true,  that  these 
gentlemen  did  act  as  counsel  before  this  board.  Mr.  PHELPS  did 
not  appear  before  the  board  in  person,  because  it  was  not 
necessary ;  but  as  the  papers  presented  by  them  were  for  con 
stituents,  they  did  not  charge  or  receive  any  compensation  for 
their  services.  On  that  point,  as  I  stated,  I  was  not  informed  as 
to  either  or  any  of  the  gentlemen  named  by  me. 

Mr.  PHELPS.  I  did  not  appear  before  the  board  at  all.  I 
merely  handed  in  the  papers. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  did  not  appear,  because  it  was 
not  necessary.  I  presume  there  is  no  question  that  neither  of 
these  gentlemen  received  any  compensation  for  their  services. 
But  the  gentleman  from  Texas  very  correctly  states,  in  my 
opinion,  that  it  was  nothing  unusual  or  improper  in  members  of 
Congress  in  appearing  before  such  a  board  as  counsel  for  com 
pensation. 

Mr.  STANTON,  of  Tennessee.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
make  a  statement  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Be  brief. 

Mr.  STANTON.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  has  my  name  as  appearing  before  this  commission  or 
not,  but  I  did  appear  there,  in  one  case  for  a  constituent  of  mine, 
who  employed  me  as  his  counsel,  and  paid  me  for  it.  I  drew  his 
memorial,  and  presented  it  before  the  board.  I  did  not  think 
the  commission  allowed  him  half  as  much  as  he  was  entitled  to, 
but  he  paid  me  in  accordance  with  his  own  proposition. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  did  not  have  the  gentleman's  name ;  and  it  is 
very  possible  other  members  of  Congress  appeared  about  whom 
I  have  no  information. 

Mr.  STANTON.  I  will  state  further,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  have 
attended  to  business  for  my  constitutents  and  others,  a  thousand 
times,  and  never  received  a  cent  for  my  services,  and  never 
would  receive  a  cent,  although  money  has  been  repeatedly 
offered  me. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  seems,  then,  that  the  two  gentlemen,  Mr. 
Howard  and  Mr.  Phelps,  happened  to  have  the  papers  of  con 
stituents,  in  consideration  of  which,  they  did  not  charge  them  for 
their  services;  but  if  the  papers  had  been  presented  by  others, 


384      SPEECH    ON    THE    BILL    TO    PREVENT   FRAUDS,    ETC. 

according  to  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee, 
[Mr.  STANTON,]  and  of  the  gentleman  from  Texas,  [Mr.  HOW 
ARD,]  tliGy  would  have  considered  it  nothing  improper  to  have 
appeared  before  that  commission,  any  more  than  to  have  ap 
peared  before  the  Supreme  Court  as  counsel. 

Now,  my  point  was,  to  show  from  the  whole  legislative  history 
of  the  country,  that  such  a  connection  has  never  been  deemed 
improper,  that  there  is  no  legislation  against  it.  This  I  think  I 
have  established.  The  only  department  of  the  government  in 
relation  to  which  such  a  connection  is  prohibited  by  law  is  that  of 
the  Treasury.  That  is  the  only  department  in  which  public  officers 
are  prohibited  from  holding  such  a  relationship.  In  the  war 
department  there  is  no  law  against  either  the  head  of  it  or  any 
subordinate  being  interested  in  a  claim,  or  prosecuting  a  claim 
pending  before  the  Treasury.  In  the  State  clepartment  there  is 
no  such  prohibition,  or  in  any  other  department.  Here,  and  in 
this  connection,  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
investigation  which  was  had  in  183T,  before  the  memorable  com 
mittee  of  Mr.  Wise.  You  recollect,  perhaps,  that  amongst  other 
charges  of  impropriety  preferred  by  Mr.  Wise,  was,  that  the 
heads  of  some  of  the  departments  were  speculating  in  the  public 
lands,  and  with  having  interest  in,  and  with  prosecuting  claims 
against  the  government.  The  position  of  General  Jackson,  and 
of  the  party  then  in  power,  of  which  he  was  emphatically  the 
head,  was,  that  there  was  no  law  against  it,  and  that  if  the 
head  of  any  of  the  departments,  except  the  treasury,  or  any  of 
the  officers  of  the  government,  had  a  claim  against  the  govern 
ment,  or  was  disposed  to  invest  his  money  in  speculating  in  the 
public  lands,  that  it  was  no  well-grounded  charge  against  the 
integrity  of  such  officer.  I  have  the  report  of  that  committee 
before  me,  with  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Wise  upon  it.  These  papers, 
I  think,  fully  sustain  this  position. 

The  Secretary  of  State  was  charged  at  that  time  with  being 
largely  interested  in  a  land  company  in  the  State  of  Alabama. 
Witnesses  were  put  upon  the  stand  and  questioned  as  to  that 
fact.  The  question  was  so  modified  and  restricted  as  to  make 
the  witness  answer  whether  the  Secretary  of  State  had  been  in 
terested  in  any  land  speculations  "  contrary  to  law."  There  was 
no  law  against  it,  and  the  question  was  not  permitted  to  be  pro 
pounded  touching  the  matter  without  this  modification.  The 
inference  was  clear  that  he  was,  or  if  he  was,  that  it  was  his 
legal  right  to  be  so  interested. 

Well,  sir,  with  this  distinct  allegation  as  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  what  said  General  Jackson  to  this  committee  ?  "If  you 
are  able  to  point  to  any  case  where  there  is  the  slightest  reason 
to  suspect  corruption  or  abuse  of  trust,  no  obstacle  which  I  can 
remove  shall  be  interposed  to  prevent  the  fullest  scrutiny  by  all 
legal  means."  This  Tie  said  to  Mr.  Wise.  He  had  specified  the 
speculations  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in  public  lands.  But  that 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT  FRAUDS,    ETC.       385 

was  no  case  of  "  corruption  and  abuse,"  in  the  opinion  of  General 
Jackson,  because  it  was  not  against  any  law. 

General  Jackson  held  that  there  was  no  corruption  in  the 
charge,  if  true,  because  there  was  no  law  against  it ;  and  his 
friends  in  this  House  on  the  committee  would  not  allow  the 
question  to  be  put. 

And  I  say,  sir,  you  must  first  define  crime  before  you  go 
hunting  criminals.  You  must  first  proclaim  by  law  what  is 
wrong,  and  what  you  intend  to  hold  up  to  public  odium,  before 
you  can  hold  Mr.  Corwin,  or  Mr.  Anybody  else,  up  as  a  public 
malefactor  for  breaking  your  law.  Your  law  must  first  be  made 
and  published.  Where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression. 
Therefore  you  cannot  rightfully  charge  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States,  with  being  "im 
properly"  employed  as  counsel  before  the  Board  of  Mexican  Com 
missioners,  which  is  the  issue  in  this  matter,  until  you  declare  by 
law  that  a  Senator  shall  not  be  so  employed,  and  until  he  then 
shall  have  rendered  himself  obnoxious  to  the  provisions  of  your 
law.  When  all  this  takes  place,  his  conduct  will  fall  within  the 
range  of  those  acts  which  are  called  "  mala  prohibita"  and  not 
even  then  within  that  class  denominated  "  mala  in  se,"  unless 
there  be  positive  corruption. 

But,  sir,  there  is  another  matter  brought  into  discussion,  to 
which  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  House  for  a  short  reference  to. 

The  investigations  of  Mr.  Wise's  committee  were  connected 
with  other  matters  beside  speculations  in  land,  and  one  of  which 
has  been  alluded  to  in  this  debate.  It  was  freely  admitted  by 
the  then  Secretary  of  State — Mr.  Forsyth — that  he  had  been  em 
ployed  as  attorney,  and  was  so  employed  while  Secretary  of 
State,  to  prosecute  against  the  government  what  is  well  known 
as  the  Galphin  claim.  General  Jackson  knew,  and  the  country 
knew,  that  Mr.  Forsyth  admitted  this.  It  was  not  denied.  He 
was  Secretary  of  State,  and  admitted  the  fact  before  the  commit 
tee.  Here  is  his  evidence.  Yet  no  one  censured  Mr.  Forsyth ; 
and  no  one  then  dared  to  impugn  his  honor  for  it.  That  then 
and  now  stands  above  reproach — because  it  was  his  legal  right 
to  do  so.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  by  the  law  of  1789 
prohibited  from  prosecuting  or  becoming  interested  in  claims 
against  the  government.  But,  as  I  have  said,  there  is  no  law 
prohibiting  this  in  the  heads  of  the  other  departments.  Now,  I 
beg  the  indulgence  of  the  House,  by  way  of  digression,  to  allude 
somewhat  to  this  claim,  which  others  have  associated  with  "  Gard- 
inerism,"  as  they  call  it.  I  addressed  a  former  House  upon  the 
same  subject.  But  there  are  many  here  who  I  doubt  not  know 
but  little  of  its  merits.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  OLDS,] 
in  his  speech,  alludes  to  "  Galphinism,"  or  the  "  Galphins."  He 
says,  that  after  the  decease  of  the  lamented  Taylor,  when  Mr. 
Fillmore  entered  this  hall  to  take  the  oath  of  office,  followed  by 
the  Cabinet  of  General  Taylor,  Corwin  heard  the  murmur  from 
25 


386        SPEECH   OX   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,   ETC. 

the  galleries,  "there  come  the  Galphins,"  which  reached  every 
part  of  the  hall. 

Well,  sir,  the  gentleman  may  have  heard  such  a  murmur,  but  I 
did  not,  and  never  heard  of  it  until  I  saw  it  in  his  speech. 

Now,  sir,  I  intend  to  say  something  on  this  Galphin  claim. 
Gentlemen  may,  if  they  choose,  continue  to  cry  out  Galphiu 
fraud  ;  but  they  shall  not  do  it  without  the  exposure  which  is  due 
to  the  truth,  as  well  as  right  and  justice. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  here  to-day  to  defend  that  claim  against  any 
one  who  may  be  bold  enough  to  assail  it.  I  hold  myseFf  ready  to 
say  and  maintain  that  there  was  no  fraud  in  the  Galphin  claim. 
I  saw  this  claim  alluded  to  in  a  paper  the  other  day  as  the  "  Gal 
phin  swindle."  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  this  House  to  hear,  not 
as  partisans,  what  I  have  to  assert  in  vindication  of  the  truth  in 
this  matter.  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  do  it,  in  vindication  of 
people  whom  I  know,  descendants  of  Galphin,  and  men  who  under 
him  have  received  their  just  rights — rights  which  were  long 
delayed  at  the  door  of  public  justice.  Some  of  these  gentlemen 
reside  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  some  reside  in  the  State  of 
South  Carolina — as  high-minded,  honorable,  and  chivalrous  men 
as  ever  trod  the  face  of  the  earth ;  men  who  would  scorn  to  take  a 
dollar  from  the  government  which  was  not  justly  their  due. 
Some  of  these  parties  I  know — and  I  will  vindicate  them,  and  I 
will  vindicate  the  truth  of  history,  whenever  they  or  their  con 
duct  in  this  matter  are  assailed  or  maligned.  There  was,  sir,  no 
fraud  in  the  Galphin  claim.  In  the  maintenance  of  what  I  say, 
I  shall  assert  facts  and  nothing  but*  facts,  which  are  uncontro- 
verted  in  the  past  and  incontrovertible  for  all  time  to  come.  And 
when  I  am  done,  I  want  to  see  the  man  rise  up  here  in  the  face 
of  these  facts  and  say  that  there  was  fraud  in  the  payment  of  that 
just  debt. 

These  are  the  facts  :  In  1773,  the  Cherokee  Indians  and  the  Creek 
Indians  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  were  indebted  to  certain  traders 
to  a  considerable  amount  of  money.  They  had  nothing  to  pay  it 
with.  This  was  while  Georgia  was  a  British  colony.  These  In 
dians  agreed  to  cede  to  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain  a  certain 
amount  of  land — two  millions  and  a  half  of  acres,  or  thereabouts 
— in  consideration  of  which  Great  Britain  was  to  take  the  lands 
and  discharge  their  debts  to  these  traders.  The  treaty  was  made 
in  1713.  On  the  2d  of  May,  1775,  a  certificate  was  made  out  by 
commissioners  appointed  according  to  the  treaty,  to  George 
Galphin  for  £9,791  15s.  5d.  The  war  of  the  Revolution  broke 
out  in  1116.  The  land  was  not  sold  to  Great  Britain,  nor  the 
debt  or  any  part  of  it  paid  ;  and  in  1777  Georgia  took  possession 
of  the  lands.  She  gave  them  as  bounty  to  the  soldiers  who 
would  go  and  occupy  them.  She  used  them  in  our  national  de 
fense  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution ;  and  George  Galphin,  in  that 
day,  did  your  country  and  the  infant  colony  of  Georgia  most  es- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FKAUDS,    ETC.        387 

sential  service  in  preventing  the  Indians  from  making  inroads 
upon  the  defenceless  inhabitants  of  that  unprotected  frontier. 

I  speak  from  history  and  the  records  of  the  country — Galphin 
was  true  to  the  cause  of  his  country  and  her  struggle  for  inde 
pendence.  And  I  state  here,  that  the  only  section  of  our  State 
which  was  not  at  some  period  of  the  w.ar  taken  by  the  British, 
was  where  settlements  were  made  on  those  lands,  in  the  county  of 
Wilkes.  There  the  British  flag  has  never  waved  since  the  Decla- 
tion  of  Independence.  Nay,  more  ;  a  fort  erected  by  these,  set 
tlers,  bearing  the  name  of  Washington,  on  the  site  of  the  present 
town  of  Washington — the  name  continued  from  that  day  to  this 
— was  the  first  place,  as  I  believe,  on  this  whole  continent,  named 
in  honor  of  the  Father  of  his  country.  This,  I  say,  I  believe.  I 
do  not  state  this  as  a  historic  fact ;  for  there  may  have  been  some 
place  so  called  at  an  earlier  date  ;  I  think  not,  however ;  and 
until  the  contrary  be  shown,  I  shall  claim  this  honor  for  my 
State,  and  the  people  of  the  county  of  my  birth. 

But  to  proceed  with  my  narrative.  The  State  of  Georgia,  in 
1180,  passed  an  act  binding  and  obligating  herself  to  pay  to  any 
of  those  Indian  claimants  who  were  true  to  the  country,  the 
whole  amount  awarded  to  them  by  the  commissioners  under  the 
treaty,  and  for  which  the  lands  were  bound  in  equity  and  good 
faith,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent.  George  Galphin  was  one  of 
them.  By  her  act  she  assumed  this  debt  of  Galphin  for  £9,791 
15s.  5d,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent,  per  annum.  Did  not  this 
solemn  act  create  a  just  debt  ?  But  Galphin  died  in  It 80,  very 
soon  after  the  act  passed. 

George  Walton,  a  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
from  the  State  of  Georgia,  testified  himself,  in  1800,  that  he 
knew  George  Galphin;  that  he  ''enjoyed  his  friendship  in  his 
lifetime ;"  that  he  was  a  patriot,  and  had  rendered  essential  ser 
vices  to  the  country.  Mr.  Walton  further  stated  that  he  was  on 
the  committee  in  the  Georgia  Legislature  that  framed  the  law  of 
1180,  providing  for  the  payment  of  these  claims;  that  he  was 
chairman  of  that  committee  ;  that  he  drew  the  act,  and  well  re 
collected  "its  motives,  its  sincerity,  and  its  intention  of  justice," 
and  that  it  was  an  honest  debt,  due  to  that  "  venerable  man." 
Did  George  Walton  want  to  "  swindle"  anybody  ?  Did  George 
Walton  plot  fraud  against  your  Treasury? — George  Walton  the 
man  who  risked  his  life  for  the  liberties  you  enjoy  ?  Was  he 
sneaking  about  to  get  his  arm  into  the  Treasury  ?  Sir,  he  was 
made  of  sterner  stuff,  and  you  may  howl  against  the  Galphins  as 
long  as  you  please,  but  while  I  stand  upon  the  testimony  of  the 
man  who  stood  by  this  country  in  its  darkest  hour,  I  shall  feel  no 
dishonor  in  defending  the  rights  of  that  man  whose  friendship  he 
enjoyed  while  living. 

I  say  there  never  was  a  juster  claim  against  the  State  of 
Georgia  than  this.  She  pledged  to  him  the  amount  of  his  debt, 
which  wras  £9,191  15s.  5d.  in  sterling  money,  and  six  per  cent. 


388       SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,    ETC. 

interest.  Well,  the  old  man  died  a  month  or  two  after — the 
venerable  old  man,  as  the  patriot  Walton  called  him.  I  saw 
some  time  ago  a  toast  given  at  a  dinner,  with  this  idea — that  the 
history  of  this  administration  would  be  written  in  the  blood  of 
the  Galphins.  And  who,  sir,  was  Galphin  ?  He  was  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  men  living  on  the  frontiers  of  your  country,  a 
man  who  stood  by  the  patriots  who  won  your  liberties  and 
achieved  the  independence  of  your  country.  I  state  further  that 
his  daughter  was  married  to  John  Milledge,  of  Georgia,  a  man 
whose  name  the  capital  of  our  State  still  bears  in  the  city  of  Mil- 
ledgeville,  and  we  do  not  feel  dishonored  by  this  perpetuation  of 
the  name  of  a  man  who  was  thus  connected  and  allied  with 
George  Galphin  ?  And  whoever  wants  the  history  of  this  admin 
istration  written  in  the  blood  of  the  Galphins,  wants  it  written  in 
the  blood  of  some  of  the  purest  and  noblest  men  who  periled  their 
all  for  the  rights  and  liberties  of  their  country. 

Now,  sir,  this  claim  was  presented  to  the  legislature  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  in  1793,  by  his  son.  The  committee  to  whom  it 
was  referred,  reported  in  favor  of  it.  And  it  was  presented  to 
several  legislatures  after  that  up  to  1826 ;  but  it  was  not  paid, 
though  almost  every  committee  to  whom  it  was  referred  reported 
in  favor  of  it,  as  a  just  debt  against  Georgia.  Do  you  ask  why  it 
was  not  paid  ?  I  will  tell  you,  in  my  opinion,  simply  because 
they  did  not  have  the  money.  For  the  same  reason,  I  fear  that 
most  of  our  States  will  fail  to  pay  their  debts  when  the  question 
shall  be  between  refusal  and  very  high  taxation. 

Well,  why  was  it  presented  here?  I  will  tell  you.  In  1790, 
the  general  government  passed  what  is  known  as  the  assumption 
act.  That  is,  the  general  government  brought  into  a  general 
account  the  contributions  of  each  State,  either  to  the  general 
defence,  or  the  particular  defence  of  the  common  country,  during 
the  common  struggle  of  the  war  for  our  national  independence. 
At  this  time  Galphin  was  dead,  and  Georgia  had  not  paid  this 
£9,791  15s.  5d.  She  had  pledged  herself  to  pay  for  the  lands  she 
had  taken  possession  of  and  disposed  of,  but  she  had  not  paid  the 
debt,  and  did  not  bring  it  into  the  account  on  the  settlement 
under  the  assumption  act  of  1790.  The  settlement  under  the 
assumption  act  was  thought  for  a  long  time  in  Georgia  to  be  a 
final  settlement,  and  that  she  could  not  go  behind  it.  Well,  in 
1832,  the  State  of  Yirginia,  came  before  Congress,  and  pre 
sented  claims  to  a  large  amount  under  these  circumstances  :  She 
stated  that  during  the  war  of  the  revolution,  she  had  by  law 
promised  to  pay  to  certain  officers  in  her  State  line,  raised  for  her 
own  particular  defence,  certain  annuities  for  life,  upon  certain  con 
ditions  set  forth  in  an  act  of  her  general  assembly.  A  number 
of  these  officers  insisted  that  they  had  complied  with  these  condi 
tions,  and  claimed  their  compensation  according  to  contract. 
She  had  resisted  these  claims  for  a  long  time,  but  finally  her 
courts,  which  were  open  against  her,  had  decided  in  favor  of  the 


SPEECH    OX    THE   BILL   TO    PREVENT   FRAUDS,    ETC.        389 

claimants,  and  judgments  to  a  large  amount  were  rendered  against 
her,  and  the  State  then  came  and  asked  Congress  to  re-open  the 
assumption  act  of  1T90,  or  at  least  to  pay  these  claims,  upon  the 
principles  of  that  act ;  because  she  said  that  her  liability  to  these 
officers  was  of  the  same  nature  as  the  advances  for  the  particular 
defence  that  she  had  made,  and  which  had  been  brought  into  the 
account  under  the  assumption  act  of  1190.  Congress,  in  1832, 
assumed  the  liability  and  paid  it ;  and  in  doing  that,  Congress 
did  right;  because  Virginia,  in  IT 90,  did  not  know  that  she  was 
liable,  or  would  be  liable  for  those  claims.  You  paid  under  that 
act  nearly  a  million  of  dollars,  perhaps  more. 

Now,  then,  the  representatives  of  Galphin  came  and  asked  the 
general  government  to  pay  them  £9,*Z91  15s.  5^.,  with  interest  at 
BIX  per  cent. ;  which  was  the  liability  or  debt  of  Georgia,  incurred 
for  the  particular  defence  of  that  part  of  the  common  country  not 
included  in  the  act  of  IT 90,  just  as  they  did 'the  Virginia  claims, 
and  identically  upon  the  same  principles  of  equity  and  justice  and 
right.  In  1836,  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution  requesting  the 
President  of  the  United  States  (General  Jackson)  to  write  to  the 
Governor  of  Georgia,  to  get  all  the  information  in  his  possession 
upon  the  subject.  In  January,  183T,  General  Jackson  so  wrote ; 
and  Governor  Schley,  of  Georgia — a  political  friend  of  General 
Jackson — answered  the  inquiries  soon  after,  and  amongst  other 
things  said,  "  that  there  is  justly  due  to  the  heirs  of  George  Gal 
phin  the  sum  of  nine  thousand  seven  hundred  and  ninety-one 
pounds  fifteen  shillings  and  five  pence  sterling  money  of  Great 
.Britain,"  etc.,  etc. ;  il  and  the  only  question  now  is,  whether 
Georgia  or  the  United  States  ought  to  pay  the  money"  The 
claim,  like  many  others,  remained  for  several  years  ;  but  in  August, 
1848,  Congress  passed  a  law  requiring  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury  "  to  examine  and  adjust "  it,  and  "  to  pay  the  amount  which 
may  be  found  due  to  Milledge  Galphin,  executor  of  George  Gal 
phin,  out  of  any  money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appro 
priated  ;"  and  in  pursuance  of  that  law  the  principal  and  interest 
of  that  debt  was  paid.  That  sir,  is  Galphinism  ! — its  height,  its 
length,  its  breadth,  and  depth.  There  it  stands  in  all  its  naked 
deformity.  Look  upon  it,  examine  it,  scrutinize  it,  and  tell  me 
where  is  the  "  swindle,"  and  who  have  been  the  "  swindlers." 
When  the  case  was  last  presented  to  Congraes,  whose  hands  was 
it  put  into  ?  Into  the  hands  of  George  McDuffie,  of  South  Caro 
lina.  Who  presented  it  ?  George  McDuffie !  Did  he*  want  to 
commit  a  fraud  against  your  treasury  ?  Was  he  a  swindler  ?  It 
went  before  a  committee,  and  who  constituted  that  Committee  ? 
Messrs.  Ashley,  Breese,  Berrien.  Westcott  and,  Webster.  They  made 
a  report  to  the  Senate,  and  spread  it  before  the  country  in  1847. 
The  bill  passed  the  Senate.  There  was  no  formidable  opposition, 
because  the  grounds  upon  which  it  was  presented  and  sustained 
were  too  clear,  as  I  believe,  to  be  avoided.  Here  was  the  act  of 
Georgia  obliging  her  to  pay  that  debt — as  solemn  a  debt  as  ever 


390       SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL   TO    PREVENT   FRAUDS,    ETC. 

was  contracted.  It  was  for  particular  defences,  and  was  put 
upon  precisely  the  same  grounds  of  assumption  as  the  Yirginia 
claims,  and  no  one  could  escape  the  force  of  the  reasons. 

In  1848  it  was  before  the  same  committee  in  the  Senate.  That 
committee  was  composed  of  the  same  gentlemen  who  constituted 
the  former  committee,  with  one  or  two  exceptions — a  committee 
of  able  and  practical  men.  They  reported  again  in  favor  of  it. 
Were  they  the  "  Galphins  "  who  perpetrated  this  monstrous  fraud  ? 
The  distinguished  Senator  from  Michigan,  [General  Cass,]  when 
Secretary  of  War,  said  that  there  was  no  doubt  but  that  the 
claim  was  just,  and  the  only  question  was,  which  should  pay  it, 
Georgia  or  the  United  States.  Was  he  one  of  the  swindlers  ? 

Early  in  1848,  the  bill  came  into  this  House,'and  was  laid  upon 
your  table.  The  report  was  printed,  and  the  case  referred  to  a 
committee  of  this  House.  I  have  before  me  the  names  of  that 
committee,  and  they  are  all  honorable  men,  and  unimpeachable. 
One  of  the  gentlemen  upon  that  committee  (Mr.  Pettit)  is  nomi 
nated  by  his  party,  I  see,  to  be  a  Senator  from  the  State  of  Indiana. 
Was  he  a  swindler  ?  Did  he  think  it  was  a  great  fraud  ?  Was  he 
trying  to  cheat  the  public  ?  Is  he  one  of  those  with  whose  blood  it 
is  the  desire  of  some  to  write  the  history  of  this  Administration  ? 
Do  you  want  to  write  the  history  of  the  Administration  in  the 
blood  of  General  Cass,  of  Mr.  Forsyth,  of  Governor  Schley,  the 
blood  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  the  Senate,  and  in  the  blood  of 
the  distinguished  individual  to  whom  I  have  just  alluded  ?  Are  all 
these  men  Galphins  ?  I  believe  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  said  that 
they,  the  "  Galphins,"  were  buried  so  deep,  that  the  hand  of  resurrec 
tion  would  never  raise  them  up.  But  the  Democracy  in  Indiana, 
it  seems,  has  imparted  new  life  to  one  of  them — has  "  galvanized  " 
him,  at  least,  by  sending  him  to  the  Senate. 

I  heard  a  gentleman  inquire  how  this  Galphin  claim  passed 
through  this  House.  I  say  it  passed  this  House  by  the  unani 
mous  vote  of  every  man  in  it,  when  any  one  man's  voice  could 
have  prevented  it.  It  stood  upon  its  own  merits.  No  speech  was 
made  in  its  behalf.  It  had  no  advocate  but  the  plain,  short,  strong 
argument  of  the  committee.  Their  printed  report  lay  upon  your 
desk  for  six  months.  It  was  taken  up  and  acted  upon  at  a  time 
when  no  bill  could  pass,  that  did  not  receive  the  unanimous  sup 
port  of  every  man  ii*  the  House.  Your  Journal  shows  this  fact. 
It  passed  in  August,  1848.  Were  all  in  this  House  then  Gal 
phins  ?  It  was  passed,  and  carried  to  Mr.  Polk  for  his  signature. 
Did  not  he  understand  all  about  Galphin  ?  Was  not  Mr.  Forsyth 
a  feed  attorney,  and  did  he  not  prosecute  it  while  Secretary  of 
State  under  Jackson  ?  Did  not  Mr.  Wise  report  then,  that  this 
Galphin  claim  was  about  $150,000  ?  Was  not  Mr.  Polk,  as  Speaker 
of  this  House  at  that  time,  conversant  with  all  these  facts  ?  It  is  to 
be  presumed  that  he  was.  At  any  event  he  signed  the  bill  two 
days  after  it  passed.  Is  he,  too,  one  of  the  famous  family  of  the  Gal 
phins  ?  Mr.  Walker,  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  paid  the  prill- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,   ETC.       391 

cipal,  but  did  not  pay  the  interest,  because,  as  he  stated  in  his 
testimony,  he  did  not  have  time  to  investigate  that  point.  But, 
he  said — and  mark  it — that  whatever  Qalphin's  debt  was,  this  gov 
ernment,  by  the  act  of  1848,  had  assumed  it  fully.  The  act  of 
Georgia  of  1780,  pledging  to  Galphin  £9,791  15s.  5d.,  with  interest 
at  six  per  cent,  per  annum,  was  not  before  him.  But  who  can  say, 
with  that  act  before  him,  he  would  not  have  paid  the  interest  ac 
cording  to  his  testimony  ?  For  he  said,  whatever  the  debt  was 
which  was  due  to  Galphin,  the  act  of  1848  had  assumed.  And 
who  can  say  that  £9,791  15s.  5^.,  with  six  per  cent,  interest,  was 
not  due  to  Galphin  by  the  act  of  Georgia  of  1780  ?  If  any  man 
is  bold  enough  to  do  so,  let  him  do  it.  My  time  will  not  permit 
me  to  discuss  this  subject  at  any  greater  length,  and  I  trust  the 
House  will  pardon  this  digression. 

What  I  have  said  I  have  stated  for  the  House  and  the  country. 
The  facts,  as  I  have  stated,  are  uncontroverted  in  the  past,  and 
will  remain  incontrovertible  for  all  time  to  come,  and  I  defy  their 
controversion  here  or  anywhere. 

I  am  here  to  resist  all  party  clamor  that  may  be  brought  against 
this  claim.  I  suppose  that  many  of  these  expressions,  such  as 
"  Galphins,"  by  party  heat,  emanate  from  partisan  feeling,  and 
without  any  distinct  or  definite  idea  of  what  are  meant  by  them. 
But  I  say  that  the  character  of  every  man  should  be  defended  by 
those  who  love  truth  and  justice.  The  character  of  the  hum 
blest,  alike  with  the  character  of  the  highest,  shall,  at  all  times, 
receive  defence  from  me,  when  I  can  defend  it.  I  care  not  if  the 
name  of  wrongful  accusers  is  legion,  I  will  face  them  all,  if  neces 
sary.  I  do  not  care  to  join  with  the  shouting  multitude  barely 
because  they  are  strong  in  numbers.  I  do  not  fancy  the  taste  of 
those  who  play  upon  expressions  because  they  catch  the  popular 
cant  or  whim  of  the  day.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  pander  to  the 
passions  or  prejudices  of  the  uninformed. 

Sir,  this  is  the  "facilis  descensus  Avemi,"  the  downward  road 
of  the  demagogue.  It  is  easy  to  travel  it,  and,  to  some,  it  seems 
to  be  a  pleasant  jaunt ;  but  to  vindicate  the  truth,  to  stand  up  for 
the  right  against  the  majority,  "  Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est."  I  shall 
do  it,  or  attempt  to  do  it,  sir,  though  I  be  ^minority  of  one. 

'  I  have  nothing  to  say,  at  this  time,  about  the  connection  of  the 
then  Secretary  of  War  with  it.  Mr.  Crawford  was  interested  in 
the  claim,  and  was  Secretary  of  War  when  the  interest  was  paid — 
that  is  all.  I  will,  however,  ask,  when  the  offer  was  made  to  have 
the  justice  and  legality  of  the  allowance  referred  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  who  prevented  it?  The  Senate 
Journal  will  show. 

Did  they  want  to  commit  a  fraud  upon  the  Treasury  ?  Was 
Mr.  BUTLER,  of  South  Carolina,  Mr.  ATCHISON,  of  Missouri,  Mr. 
TURNEY,  of  Tennessee,  and  a  number  more  whom  I  need  not  name, 
were  they  all  Galphins  ?  But  I  am  done  with  this ;  and  I  am  also 


392       SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   PKEVENT  FRAUDS,    ETC. 

done  with  the  matters  alluded  to  in  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
the  Gardiner  case. 

I  have  shown  that  the  committee  fully  acquitted  Mr.  Corwin  of 
the  charge  of  being  improperly  connected  with  the  claim,  and  that 
this  bill  has  really  no  connection  with  the  duty  assigned  to  them. 

This  bill,  with  amendments,  I  intend  to  vote  for ;  but  I  shall 
not  vote  for  it  as  it  is,  because,  under  its  provisions,  any  member 
might  be  put  in  the  penitentiary  for  going  down  to  the  Pension 
Office  and  filing  the  memorial  of  any  of  his  constituents  for  a 
bounty  land  warrant.  With  amendments  which  shall  prevent 
members  of  Congress  from  attending  to  such  business  "  for  fee 
or  reward,"  I  shall  vote  for  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  such  a  prohibi 
tion  in  future,  not  because  there  has  been  any  thing  dishonorable, 
disreputable,  or  corrupt,  or  "  malum  in  se"  in  such  acts,  and  not 
because  I  think  that  Messrs.  Dallas,  Webster,  Benton,  and  Stan- 
ton,  or  Corwin,  did  any  thing  wrong  in  what  I  have  stated,  for  I 
do  not,  but  because  I  think  that  we  should  establish  a  rule  for  the 
future  by  which  honorable  men  can  act  so  as  not  to  subject  them 
selves  to  unjust  imputations.  The  bill  thus  amended  would,  if 
even  made  retrospective,  never  touch  any  act  of  mine.  But  I 
make,  however,  no  boast  of  that.  I  have  never  looked  upon  such 
acts  in  others  as  at  all  disreputable,  much  less  as  grounds  of 
charging  corruption.  I  think  it  wise  and  proper  that  such  a  re 
gulation  should  be  made.  And  why?  Because  honest,  unim 
peachable  men,  such,  in  my  opinion,  as  Webster,  and  Corwin,  and 
others  acting  in  that  capacity,  may  be  a  sort  of  cloak  for  those 
wrho  may  be  unscrupulous  and  corrupt. 

Mr.  STEVENS,  of  Pennsylvania.  As  the  gentleman  intends  to  vote 
for  the  bill,  which  it  is  almost  treason  to  say  is  an  impeachment 
upon  the  whole  House,  I  would  inquire  whether  he  intends  to 
extend  its  provisions  to  prevent  members  from  advocating  cases 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  if  he  does 
not,  why  does  he  make  the  distinction  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  shall  vote  for  that,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  will  be  incorporated  with  the  bill  or  not.  I  will  state  candidly 
to  the  gentleman,  as  I  did  in  a  conversation  on  this  matter  with  a 
distinguished  gentlerMin  yesterday,  who  said  that  he  thought  it 
proper  not  to  extend  the  prohibition  to  the  Supreme  Court,  that 
I  think  the  prohibition  should  extend  to  members  of  Congress 
practicing  in  that  court,  as  well  as  before  boards  of  commission 
ers — and  why?  The  impeaching  power  is  with  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  the  trying  power  with  the  Senate  ;  and  I 
ask  what  kind  of  influence  would  be  more  powerful  than  Con 
gressional  influence  upon  a  judge  who  felt  guilty,  and  knew  that 
an  impeachment  was  to  be  made  ?  Would  he  not  favor  a  distin 
guished  member  of  Congress  who  was  counsel  in  a  case  before 
him  for  trial,  quite  as  much  as  a  member  of  a  board  of  commis 
sioners  ?  I  will,  if  possible,  vote  for  the  extension  of  the  pro 
visions  of  this  bill  to  the  Supreme  Court.  If  I  cannot  get  that,  I 


SPEECH   ON  THE  BILL  TO   PREVENT   FRAUDS,   ETC.      893 

shall  vote  for  the  bill  in  the  best  shape  I  can  get  it.  I  am  for 
establishing  a  rule  by  which  every  one  can  regulate  his  conduct, 
and  then  right  and  wrong  will  not  be  left  to  the  capricious  judg 
ment  of -friend  or  foe.  Let  it  be  written  in  the  law,  and  then  all 
can  equally  stand  or  fall  by  the  law,  and  not  the  uncertain  stand 
ard  of  men's  opinions. 

[In  the  progress  of  the  debate  Mr.  STEPHENS  having  repeated 
his  belief*  from  the  disclosures,  that  the  Gardiner  claim  was 
wholly  unfounded,  but  that  the  matter  was  undergoing  judicial 
investigation  before  the  proper  courts,  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Tennessee, 
inquired  of  him  if  the  proof  of  its  being  a  fabrication  was  not  so 
conclusive  as  to  cause  the  President  to  institute  suits  for  the 
recovery  of  the  money,  and  prosecutions  for  forgery  and  perjury, 
etc. ;  and  whether  Mr.  STEPHENS  would  say  that  Mr.  Corwin,  if 
these  cases  should  be  decided  against  Gardiner,  would  repay  what 
he  had  received  from  the  treasury  of  the  United  States.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  will  answer  the  gentleman.  I  admit  that  the 
President  has  done  what  he  said,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  he  did  it  long 
before  this  clamor  in  the  House  was  raised.  The  President  had 
this  man  arrested  under  a  suspicion  that  reached  him,  I  think, 
long  before  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  OLDS]  moved  in  the 
matter.  The  President  upon  suspicion  did  it,  and  he  did  right ; 
and  this  committee,  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr. 
JOHNSON]  is  a  member,  knows  and  reports  that  the  President  has 
been  vigilant — and  the  papers  in  the  report  show  that  Mr.  Cor 
win  too  has  been  active  and  vigilant  in  getting  at  the  truth  of  the 
matter.  I  grant  these  facts,  and  I  state  them  because  the  case  is 
now  pending,  and  is  yet  to  be  tried.  The  President  has  been 
vigilant,  Mr.  Corwin  has  been  vigilant,  and  am  I  to  be  asked  what 
he  will  do  in  anticipation  of  that  judgment  ? 

Mr.  Gardiner,  it  is  true,  was  put  in  prison.  He  has  given  bail ; 
he  has  found  sureties  ;  he  says  that  he  will  vindicate  his  character. 
Is  Mr.  Corwin,  or  any  one  else,  to  prejudge  him  ?  I  never  believed 
much  in  those  Mexican  claims  when  we  went  to  war  to  get  them ; 
when  we  were  told  there  were  six  or  seven  millions  of  them,  that 
we  ought  to  go  to  war  to  make  Mexico  pay  them.  I  thought 
then  that  they  were  most  of  them  nothing  but  batches  of  fraud. 
But  I  will  do  justice  even  to  a  Mexican  claimant.  I  will  not  pre 
judge  his  case.  Let  him  come  into  court.  I,  as  a  grand  juror, 
say  that  I  believe  the  suspicion  is  a  strong  one  that  his  claim  is  a 
fraud.  But  he  shall  or  should  have  his  day  in  court  before  he  is 
condemned.  He  claims  the  opportunity  of  vindicating  himself, 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  according  to  the  treaty, 
and  he  should  have  it.  My  opinion  is,  that  he  will  not  do  it. 
Mr.  Corwin's  opinion  is,  doubtless,  that  he  will  not  do  it.  The 
President  is  of  the  opinion,  I  imagine,  that  he  will  not  do  it ; 
and  hence  they  institute  these  proceedings  against  him.  But  I 
will  not  crush  even  a  worm ;  bad  even  as  I  believe  Gardiner  to  be,  I 
will  not  prejudge  him,  nor  denounce  Mr.  Corwin  in  anticipation 


394  SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA  AND   KANSAS. 

of  his  act,  depending  upon  a  future  judgment  in  court.  Now,  the 
gentleman  says,  suppose  Gardiner  shall  be  found  guilty  by  this 
court,  would  I  defend  Mr.  Corwin  for  holding  this  money  ?  I 
do  not  consider  that  the  evidence  discloses  that  Corwin  has 
received  one  dollar  of  this  money  from  the  treasury  of  the  United 
States.  The  testimony  is,  that  he  did  buy  what  he  thought  was 
a  good  title,  and  sold  it  without  warranty,  with  a  quit-claim. 
That  is  a  matter  between  him  and  his  assignee.  Mr.  Law,  or 
some  one  under  him,  it  seems,  got  Mr.  Corwin's  interest  in  it. 

But  my  opinion  is,  that  when  the  case  in  court  is  proven  to  be 
fraudulent,  if  it  shall  be  so  proven,  that  the  same  vigilance  which 
arrested  Gardiner  ought  to  pursue  every  man  who  holds  a 
portion  of  it ;  the  one  fourth  stands  on  the  same  footing  as 
the  other  three  fourths.  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Mr. 
Corwin  would  be  just  as  vigilant,  and  the  President  would  be 
just  as  vigilant,  in  ferreting  out  the  one  as  the  other.  I  do 
not  care  in  whose  pocket  it  is  to  be  found.  How  Mr.  Corwin 
will  act  toward  his  assignee  I  do  not  know.  Whether  he  will 
feel  under  obligation  to  make  good  what  he  sold  without  war 
ranty  or  condition,  I  do  not  know.  And  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  moot  the  propriety  of  his  conduct  in  this  matter  after  the  case 
shall  be  found  by  the  court  to  be  fraudulent,  if  that  shall  ever  be, 
and  after  George  Law,  or  his  assignees,  who  got  the  money,  shall 
fail  to  respond. 


SPEECH  ON  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

FEBRUARY  IT,  1854. 

The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the 
Union. 

I  WAS  very  anxious  day  before  yesterday,  Mr.  Chairman,  when 
the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  MEACHAM,]  and  the  gentle 
man  from  New  York,  upon  my  left,  [Mr.  FENTON,]  addressed  the 
House  upon  the  subject  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  make  some  re 
marks  upon  the  same  subject  in  reply  to  them.  I  desired  to  do 
so  at  the  time,  but  the  opportunity  was  not  afforded  me.  And 
though  I  have  lost  some  of  the  ardor  of  feeling  which  the  occa 
sion  then  excited,  yet  I  think  it  important  that  these  positions 
should  be  answered,  and  it  is  for  that  purpose  that  I  rise  to 
address  the  committee  to-day.  I  assure  /ou  I  shall  be  as  brief 
as  possible. 

The  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  MEACHAM,]  if  I  under 
stood  the  train  of  his  argument,  opposed  the  Nebraska  bill,  as 
presented  to  the  House,  mainly  upon  the  ground  that  it  declares 
the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  preparatory  to  the  admis- 


SPEECH   OX  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  395 

sion  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  inoperative,  because 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  acts  of  1850,  known 
as  the  compromise  of  that  year.  This  eighth  section  of  the  act 
of  1820  is  that  clause  which,  without  any  relation  to  the  State  of 
Missouri,  prohibits  slavery  forever  from  all  that  part  of  the 
territor}^  acquired  by  the  Louisiana  cession  outside  of  Missouri 
north  of  36°  30'  north  latitude.  The  argument  of  the  gentleman 
consisted  of  the  following  series  of  assumptions : 

First,  that  that  restriction  or  prohibition  was  in  the  nature  of 
a  compact,  or  contract,  as  he  called  it. 

Secondly,  that  it  had  been  continuously  adhered  to  from  that 
time  to  this. 

Thirdly,  that  the  measure  now  proposed  would  be  a  violation 
of  that  compact. 

Fourthly,  that  this  breach  of  good  faith  would  be  attended 
with  disastrous  consequences  to  the  peace,  quiet,  and  repose  of 
the  country. 

This,  sir,  was  the  outline  of  his  argument.  ISTow  I  propose  to 
take  up  these  positions,  and  show  to  the  House,  if  not  to  the 
gentleman  himself,  that  in  every  particle  they  are  untenable. 

In  the  first  place,  I  state  that  that  eighth  clause  of  the  act 
preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  restrict 
ing  slavery  north  of  36°  30',  never  was  a  compact.  It  never  had 
any  of  the  requisites  or  characteristics  of  a  compact.  A  compact 
between  whom  ?  Between  the  North  and  South  ? 

Mr.  MEACHAM.  I  used  the  word  "contract,"  not  "compact." 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  from  Vermont  used  the  word 
"contract,"  as  I  said,  but  others  have  used  the  word  "compact," 
and,  in  this  connection,  they  both  mean  about  the  same  thing. 
But  what  I  was  about  to  affirm  is,  that  that  "  great  Missouri  com 
promise"  which  Mr.  Clay  proposed,  and  with  which  his  fame  is 
identified,  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  restrictive  clause  of  the 
act  of  1820.  That  compromise  [Mr.  CLAY'S]  was  in  the  nature 
of  a  "compact."  It  was  a  "compact"  between  the  general 
government  and  the  State  of  Missouri.  I  am  aware  that  the 
general  opinion  on  this  subject  is  very  erroneous.  This  Mr. 
Clay  fully  explained  in  1850.  The  common  idea  is,  that  Mr. 
Clay  was  the  author  of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  36° 
30r.  But  such  is  not  the  fact.  He  did  not  even  vote  for  it. 
That  proposition  came  from  a  gentleman  from  Illinois.  The 
compromise  that  Mr.  Clay  offered  was  afterwards.  Its  history  is 
this:  The  people  of  Missouri,  under  the  act  of  6th  March,  1820, 
went  on  and  formed  a  State  constitution,  which  contained  a 
clause  authorizing  the  legislature  to  pass  a  law  to  prevent  the 
immigration  of  free  negroes  ;  and  when  application  was  made  for 
admission  as  a  State  into  the  Union,  Congress  refused 'the  ad 
mission,  unless  that  clause  should  be  expunged.  It  was  then 
that  Mr.  Clay  brought  forward  his  measure.  Here  it  is : 


396  SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA  AND   KANSAS. 

Resolution  providing  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  on  a 
certain  condition. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Umted 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  Missouri  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  in  all  respects 
whatever,  upon  the  fundamental  condition  that  the  fourth  clause  of  the 
twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the  constitution,  submitted  on 
the  part  of  the  said  State  to  Congress,  shall  never  be  construed  to  author 
ize  the  passage  of  any  law,  and  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  in  conformity 
thereto,  by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  the  States  in  this  Union  shall 
be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immunities 
to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  :  Provided,  That  the  Legislature  of  the  said  State,  by  solemn 
public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of  the  said  State  to  the  said  funda 
mental  condition,  arid  transmit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on 
or  before  the  fourth  Monday  in  November  next,  an  authentic  copy  of  the 
said  act ;  upon  the  receipt  whereof  the  President,  by  proclamation,  shall 
announce  the  fact ;  whereupon,  and  without  any  further  proceeding  on 
the  part  of  Congress,  the  admission  of  the  said  State  into  this  Union 
shall  be  considered  as  complete. 

JOHN  W.  TAYLOR, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

JOHN  GAILLARD, 

President  of  the  Senate,  pro  tempore. 
Approved,  March  2  1821. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

This  proposition,  when  submitted  to  the  people  of  Missouri, 
and  acceded  to  by  them,  as  it  was,  may  very  properly  be  called 
a  "  compact."  For  there  were  parties  to  it — the  general  govern 
ment  on  one  side,  and  the  people  of  Missouri  on  the  other — both 
agreeing  to  it.  But  not  so  with  the  eighth  section  of  the  act 
referred  to — there  were  no  such  parties  to  it — that  was  nothing 
but  a  law,  with  no  greater  sanction  than  any  other  statute  that 
may  give  place  to  subsequent  legislation.  There  was  no  com 
pact  about  it.  Missouri  never  gave  her  sanction  to  it.  She 
could  not  have  been  any  party  to  it.  She  had  no  right  to  the 
territory  outside  of  her  limits.  She  had  no  power  or  authority  to 
make  any  compact  concerning  it. 

But  the  gentleman  argued  as  if  he  considered  this  eighth 
section  of  the  act  of  1820,  fixing  the  line  of  36°  80',  north  of  which 
slavery  should  be  forever  excluded,  and  which  is  commonly 
called  the  "Missouri  compromise  line,"  as  a  contract  between  the 
North  and  South,  as  the  parties.  How,  then,  stand  the  facts 
upon  this  point  of  view  ?  How  did  this  eighth  section  get  into  the 
bill  of  1820  ?  It  was  in  this  way — the  North  insisted  upon  a 
restriction  against  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  State,  which 
required  her  to  abolish  slavery  within  her  limits,  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  her  admission — the  House  passed  a  bill  with  such 
restriction — to  which  the  South  were  in  mass  opposed.  In  the 
Senate,  on  motion  by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  that  clause  con- 


SPEECH  ON  NEBRASKA  AND   KANSAS.  397 

taining  a  restriction  on  the  State  was  stricken  out,  and  this  eighth 
section  inserted  in  lieu  of  it.  The  South  in  mass  were  opposed 
to  the  State  restriction,  as  I  have  said  ;  but  many  of  her  members 
— a  majority  of  two,  I  believe — voted  for  the  substitute  as  the 
lesser  evil  of  the  two.  In  this  way  the  substitute  was  carried  as 
an  amendment  to  the  bill.  This  amendment  was  agreed  to  in  the 
House  by  a  vote  of  134  to  42.  Among  these  42  noes  are  to  be 
found  the  names  of  several  of  the  most  prominent  men  of  the 
South.  In  this  way  this  line  of  36°  30'  was  incorporated  in  the 
bill  of  1820,  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  State. 
And  to  this  extent,  and  no  other,  can  it  be  called  a  compromise, 
a  contract,  or  compact.  It  was  literally  forced  upon  the  South 
as  a  disagreeable  alternative,  by  superior  numbers,  and  in  this 
way  went  upon  your  statute  book  as  any  other  law  passed  by  a 
majority  of  votes.  So  much,  then,  sir,  for  this  "  compact,"  or 
contract.  Now  let  us  see,  in  the  second  place,  how  it  has  been 
fulfilled  or  adhered  to  from  that  day  to  this. 

The  gentleman  says  it  has  been  acquiesced  in  and  conformed 
to  for  thirty'years  ;  and  he  asks,  with  much  solemnity,  if  we  are 
now  about  to  violate  and  abrogate  it  ?  I  have  shown,  sir,  that 
the  South  was  in  no  sense  a  party  to  this  Congressional  restric 
tion  north  of  36°  30',  except  as -a  vanquished  party,  being  out 
voted  on  the  direct  question ;  protesting  against  it  with  all  her 
might  and  power.  Yet,  sir,  notwithstanding  this,  and  notwith 
standing  a  large  majority  of  her  people  from  that  day  to  this,  as 
I  think  I  ma}7"  safely  affirm,  have  held  that  clause  of  the  Missouri 
act  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  it  was  based  upon  the  principle  of 
a  division  of  the  common  territory  between  the  free  States  and 
slave  States  of  the  Union,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony, 
the  South  did  patriotically  yield,  and  was  willing  for  all  time  to 
come  to  abide  by  it.  I  say  was,  because  of  this  "  Missouri  com 
promise,"  and  the  principles  upon  which  it  was  founded,  it  may 
now  be  said  "  Illium  fuit." 

The  issue  I  make  with  the  gentleman  upon  this  branch  of  his 
speech  is,  that  this  agreement  or  contract,  as  he  argued  it,  between 
the  North  and  the  South  as  to  the  line  of  division  between  slave 
territory  and  free  territory,  has  not  remained  undisturbed 
and  inviolate  for  thirty  years,  as  he  affirms.  It  has  been  shame 
lessly  disregarded  by  Congress  repeatedly,  and  in  principle  was 
entirely  superseded,  as  I  shall  show,  by  the  principles  established 
by  your  legislation  in  1850. 

But  as  much  as  the  arrangement  was  originally  obnoxious  to 
the  South,  the  charge  of  violation  of  it  cannot  justly  be  made 
against  her.  No,  sir  ;  no,  sir ;  it  was  the  North  that  refused  to 
abide  by  her  own  bargain.  This  I  affirm.  Now  let  us  see  how 
the  record  stands  upon  the  subject.  The  first  time  that  this 
question  came  up  afterward,  was  within  twelve  months  from  the 
date  of  the  act  itself  and  before  the  same  Congress.  It  came  up 
on  the  application  of  Missouri  for  admission,  in  pursuance  of 


398  SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA  AND   KANSAS. 

the  provisions  of  the  very  act  that  contains  the  "  covenant."  She 
had  formed  a  State  constitution  in  pursuance  of  it ;  she  had  violated 
none  of  its  conditions.  The  whole  South  were  for  letting  her  be  ad 
mitted,  and  the  entire  North  nearly,  were  against  it.  Here  is  the 
vote  rejecting  her  admission — the  vote  was  79  for  it,  and  93  against 
it — the  North  in  mass,  almost,  against  it.  Why  was  this  refusal  ? 
If  they  recognized  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  preceding  as 
containing  any  section  binding  upon  them  in  the  nature  of  a  "  con 
tract,"  or  "  compact,"  why  did  they  refuse  to  fulfil  it?  The 
pretext  assigned  was,  that  the  constitution  of  Missouri  contained 
a  clause  empowering  the  legislature  to  pass  a  law  to  prevent  the 
introduction' of  free  persons  of  color,  as  I  have  stated.  But  this 
could  have  been  nothing  but  a  pretext,  for  at  that  very  day  Mas 
sachusetts  had  a  similar  law  in  actual  force  upon  her  statute 
book.  The  truth  is,  the  North  at  that  early  day  showed  that  she 
did  not  regard  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1820  as  at  all  obliga 
tory  upon  them  as  any  thing  like  a  compact.  The  real  objection 
to  the  final  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  State  was,  that  slavery 
was  tolerated  within  her  limits  by  her  constitution'.  It  was  the 
old  question,  which  gave  trouble  before  this  "  contract"  of  1820 
was  made.  It  was  then  that  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  was 
adopted.  Twelve  months,  therefore,  had  not  passed  before  the 
North  repudiated  this  compact  by  refusing  Missouri  admission 
without  another  compromise. 

Well,  the  next  time  this  question  arose  was  on  the  admission 
of  Arkansas  into  the  Union  in  1836.  This  State  was  formed  out 
of  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  purchase  south  of  36°  30'.  By  the 
terms  of  the  Missouri  "  contract,"  the  gentleman  from  Yermont 
admits  that  she  was  to  come  in  as  a  slave  State.  Did  the  North 
then  so  recognize  and  act  upon  these  terms  ?  The  gentleman 
from  New  York  [Mr.  FENTON]  said  that  this  division  line  had 
been  approved  by  the  North  for  thirty  years.  If  so,  I  ask  him 
when  or  where?  Did  they  raise  no  objection  when  Arkansas 
applied  for  admission  ?  Let  us  see  ;  here  is  the  record. 

Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  this  House,  June  13,  1836,  moved 
an  amendment  so  as  to  make  a  section  of  the  bill  for  the  admis 
sion  of  that  State  read  thus  :  •  ^  , 

11  And  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  as  an  assent  by 
Congress  to  the  article  in  the  constitution  of  the  said  State  relating  to 
slavery  and  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves,"  etc. 

"  Still  harping  on  my  daughter." 

On  a  vote,  the  effect  of  which  was  to  allow  this  amendment, 
there  were  eighty  in  favor  of  affording  the  opportunity. 
There  were  one  hundred  and  nine  on  the  opposite  side,  which 
prevented  its  being  offered.  Of  these  eighty  votes,  some  were 
from  the  South.  The  object  may  have  been  to  get  a  vote  upon 
this  distinct  question  of  the  recognition  by  the  House  of  the  line 
established  in  1820.  But  after  the  amendment  was  ruled  out  on 


SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  399 

the  direct  vote  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas  with  a  constitution 
tolerating  slavery,  though  she  was  south  of  36°  30 ',  there  are 
fifty-two  names  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Adams,  in  the  negative — 
every  one  of  them,  I  believe,  from  the  North — I  have  the  journal 
before  me.  And  amongst  these  names  I  see  Heman  Allen, 
Horace  Everett,  Hiland  Hall,  Henry  F.  Jones,  and  William 
Slade.  The  entire  delegation  from  Vermont,  and  the  gentleman's 
[Mr.  MEACHAM'S]  own  predecessor  upon  this  floor,  or  he  who 
then  represented  a  portion  of  the  same  constituency  that  that 
gentleman  now  does,  recorded  his  vote  against  the  admission  of 
Arkansas.  Did  he  or  his  colleagues  have  any  other  objection  to  it 
except  that  it  was  a  slave  State  ?  If  they  regarded  the  line  of 
36°  30'  as- a  solemn  covenant  between  the  North  and  South,  why 
did  they  not  give  it  their  sanction  at  that  time  ? 
The  gentleman  spoke  of  ''honor" — 

"  I  thank  thee,  Jew,  for  teaching  me  that  word." 

Where  was  the  "honor"  of  the  representatives  of  Vermont  on 
that  occasion  ?  In  whose  keeping  was  it  placed  ?  I  suppose  in 
the  hands  of  their  constituents,  of  whom  the  gentleman  was  one. 
The  representatives  from  the  gentleman's  own  State  did  then 
unanimously — most  dishonorably,  if  he  chooses  so  to  characterize 
their  conduct — repudiate  that  "  contract"  which  the  South  never 
offered  to  disturb,  until  it  was  totally '  abandoned  by  an  over 
whelming  majority  at  the  North,  as  I  shall  presently  show.  I 
have  shown  that  it  was,  disregarded  within  twelve  months  after  it 
was  made,  and  refused  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  representatives  of 
the  gentleman's  own  State  in  1836,  the  first  time  it  came  up 
again. 

I  will  now  go  on,  and  show  the  gentleman  and  the  House, 
when  it  came  up  again,  and  when  finally  it  was  utterly  repudi 
ated  by  the  almost  entire  North — 

Mr.  MEACHAM  (interrupting).  I  would  inquire  of  the  gentle 
man  if  the  senators  from  Yermont  did  not  vote  for  it  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  For  what  ? 

Mr.  MEACHAM.  For  the  admission  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  Senate,  but  of  the 
House,  I  have  none  but  the  House  records  before  me.  I  am 
dealing  with  members .  in  this  body,  or  those  who  preceded  us 
here.  If  the  gentleman  desires,  he  can  answer  for  his  predeces 
sors  from  the  State  of  Yermont  on  this  floor. 

The  next  time  any  thing  was  said  in  our  legislation  about  the- 
"  Missouri  line  of  36°  30',"  was  on  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
That  measure  was  carried  with  that  line  in  it,  but  not  by 
northern  votes.  It  was  the  South,  still  willing  to  abide  it,  that 
carried  it  then.  There  were  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
northern  votes  given  on  that  occasion.  Of  these,  only  fifty-one 
were  for  the  annexation  with  this  line  established  in  it ;  while 
there  were  seventy-four — a  large  majority — who  refused  to  give 


400  SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA    AND    KANSAS. 

it  their  sanction.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  all  who  voted 
against  that  measure  were  opposed  to  that  line  of  settlement. 
Many  of  them  had  other  reasons.  And  I  know  full  well,  for  I 
was  here,  that  of  those  fifty-one  northern  men  who  voted  for  it, 
many  of  them  would  not  have  voted  for  the  recognition  of  that 
line  if  the  question  had  come  up  by  itself.  But  those  resolutions 
of  annexation  were  so  presented  that  they  had  to  be  taken  as  a 
whole,  or  not  at  all.  I  allude  to  this  vote,  merely  because  it  was 
the  next  time  in  order  when  the  question  came  up,  and  the  vote 
certainly  fails  to  show  that  the  North,  or  even  a  majority  of  them, 
gave  it  their  sanction.  For  that  reason  only  I  allude  to  it. 

I  come  down  now  to  another  step  of  our  progress — to  the 
period  from  the  year  1847  to  1850.  The  gentleman  from  Yermont 
[Mr.  MEACHAM]  had  a  map  for  illustration,  which  he  exhibited  to 
us.  He  pointed  out  to  us  the  boundary  of  the  Louisiana  purchase. 
It  commenced  at  the  mouth  of  the  Sabine,  ran  up  that  river  to 
the  32°  of  north  latitude ;  thence  due  north  to  the  Red  river ; 
thence  up  that  river  to  the  100°  of  west  longitude  from  Green 
wich  ;  thence  due  north  to  the  Arkansas  river,  and  up  that  river 
to  the  42°  of  north  latitude,  and  thence  due  west  to  the  South 
seas  or  the  Pacific  ocean.  By  this  map,  and  his  demonstrations 
from  it,  it  appears  that  we  had  a  title  ceded  to  us  from  France  to 
territory  extending  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  "Well,  that  of  course 
included  Oregon — that  is,  according  to  the  gentleman's  map,  we 
derived  title  to  Oregon  under  the  cession  from  France  in  1803, 
and  that  territory  was  part  of  the  Louisiana  purchase.  Mr. 
Jefferson  so  considered  it,  and  sent  Lewis  and  Clarke  to  explore 
the  country. 

Well,  then,  how  did  the  South  act  toward  this  "  solemn  com 
pact,"  as  it  is  now  called — the  line  of  36°  30' — when  we  came  to 
organize  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon  in  1847  ?  The 
southern  boundary  was  the  42°  of  north  latitude,  and  of  course 
the  whole  of  it  lay  north  of  36°  30'.  At  this  time  (in  1847)  we 
were  in  a  war  with  Mexico,  and  it  was  well  understood  to  be  the 
policy  of  the  administration  to  acquire  territory  from  that  govern 
ment,  which,  in  all  probability,  would,  to  some  extent,  be  south 
of  the  line  36°  30'.  From  the  votes  of  the  House,  upon  what  was 
well  known  as  the  "  Wilmot  proviso,"  the  South  had  just  reasons 
to  apprehend  that  it  was  the  fixed  determination  of  a  majority  of 
the  North  to  disregard  entirely  what  is  now  called  the  "  sacred 
covenant  of  1820."  When,  therefore,  the  bill  to  organize  a 
territorial  government  for  Oregon  came  up  in  this  House  on  the 
15th  of  January,  1847,  Mr.  Burt,  of  South  Carolina,  to  take  the 
sense  of  the  North  directly  upon  the  question  of  abiding  by  this 
line  of  36°  30',  moved,  as  an  amendment  to  that  clause  in  the  bill 
which  excluded  slavery  forever  from  the  territory,  these  words : 

— "  inasmuch  as  the  whole  of  said  territory  lies  north  of  36°  30'  north 
latitude,  known  as  the  line  of  the  Missouri  compromise." 


SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA   AND    KANSAS.  401 

The  object  of  this  amendment  was  to  put  a  direct  test  to  the 
North  whether  they  intended  to  recognize  the  principle  upon 
which  the  controversy  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories 
was  disposed  of  in  1820  or  not.  Sir,  the  North  understood  the 
question  fully  and  clearly,  and  they  met  it  promptly — their 
response  was,  that  they  did  not.  Here  is  the  vote  upon  this 
question  :  there  were  in  this  House  then  82  votes  for  Mr.  Burt's 
amendment,  and  113  against  it!  Of  these  noes,  every  man  was 
from  the  North.  Every  southern  man  in  the  House  voted  for  it. 
And  of  the  82  who  voted  to  adhere  to  the  principle  of  that 
adjustment,  not  as  something  too  sacred  to  be  touched,  but  for 
the  sake  of  peace  and  quiet,  there  were,  I  believe,  but  six  from  the 
whole  North — they  were  Douglas  and  Robert  Smith,  from  Illinois ; 
Cunningham  and  Parish,  from  Ohio;  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  Hastings,  of  Iowa.  Every  man  from  Vermont 
and  New  York  voted  against  it. 

In  the  face  of  this  record  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr. 
MEACHAM,]  and  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  [Mr.  FENTON,]  in 
their  places  upon  this  floor,  two  days  ago,  declared  that  this 
"  Missouri  compromise"  had  met  the  approval  of  the  North  foi 
thirty  years.  The  South,  in  this  instance,  proposed  it  unani 
mously  as  a  "  peace  offering,"  and  it  was  almost  as  unanimously 
rejected  by  the  North.  "  Honor,"  I  think,  the  gentleman  said. 
They  rejected  it  over  territory  to  which  we  derived  title  by  the 
very  cession  alluded  to  in  the  act  of  1820.  And  so  thoroughly 
opposed  were  they  to  giving  it  their  approval,  and  so  bent  upon 
its  total  abrogation,  that  they  refused  to  affirm  the  principle  when 
they  got  all  by  the  affirmation.  "  Honor!"  indeed  !  But  sir,  to 
proceed.  This  bill  was  defeated  in  the  Senate,  I  believe.  It  did 
not  become  a  law.  The  question  came  up  again  in  1848.  Another 
bill  was  brought  forward  to  establish  a  territorial  government  for 
Oregon.  The  Senate  put  in  the  following  amendment : 

"  That  the  line  of  36°  30'  of  north  latitude,  known  as  the  Missouri  com 
promise  line,  as  defined  by  the  eighth  section  of  an  act  entitled  '  An  act 
to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Missouri  territory  to  form  a  constitution 
and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union, 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
certain  territories,'  approved  March  6,  1820,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby, 
declared  to  extend  to  the  Pacific  ocean ;  and  the  said  eighth  section,  to 
gether  with  the  compromise  therein  effected,  is  hereby  revived,  and 
declared  to  be  in  full  force  and  binding  for  the  future  organization  of  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same 
understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted." 

It  came  up  for  action  in  this  House  on  the  llth  of  August, 
1848.  On  the  question  to  concur  with  the  Senate  in  this  amend 
ment,  the  yeas  were  82,  and  the  nays  121.  I  have  the  vote  before 
me.  This  was  a  proposition  to  revive  and  declare  in  force  a 
provision  which  is  now  claimed  to  have  been  held  all  the  time  as 
a  sacred  compact — almost  as  sacred  as  the  constitution  itself;  and 
26 


402  SPEECH    ON    NEBRASKA   AND    KANSAS. 

it  was  rejected  by  an  overwhelming  majority  in  this  House — re 
jected,  sir,  by  the  North.  The  South  was  again  unanimous  for 
it.  From  the  North  at  this  time,  I  think,  there  were  but  four 
votes  for  it — Birdsall,  from  New  York  ;  Charles  Brown,  Charles 
J.  Ingersoll,  and  Brodhead,  from  Pennsylvania.  Here  is  the 
Journal.  This  proposition  in  the  Senate  was  moved  by  Mr. 
Douglas.  It  received  every  southern  vote  in  that  body,  and  was 
opposed  by  every  northern  vote,  except  Douglas,  Dickinson, 
Bright,  Cameron,  Hannegan,  Sturgeon,  and  Fitzgerald.  The 
vote  on  the  adoption  of  it  in  that  body  was  33  to  21.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  who  was  well  known  to  be  opposed  to  the  principle  on  which 
it  was  founded,  gave  it  his  support. 

But  upon  the  rejection  of  this  amendment  by  the  House,  and  a 
disagreement  between  the  two  Houses  upon  it,  the  amendment 
was  lost,  and  the  Oregon  bill  passed,  and  received  the  sanction 
of  the  President  without  this  recognition  of  the  Missouri  com 
promise,  but  in  the  face  of  its  open  repudiation  and  abrogation 
by  the  North.  This,  sir,  is  the  truth  of  history,  and  so  let  it  be 
written.  And  with  what  sort  of  face  can  gentlemen,  with  these 
facts  before  them,  rise  up  here  and  say  that  this  compromise  has 
been  undisturbed  and  acquiesced  in  for  thirty  years  ?  But,  sir, 
there  is  still  another  chapter  in  this  history. 

At  the  close  of  the  war  with  Mexico  extensive  territories,  as 
was  expected,  were  acquired — territories  extending  south  as  well 
as  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30' — constituting  a  public  domain  of 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  square  miles,  purchased  by  the  common 
blood  and  common  treasure  of  the  people  of  the  South  as  well  as 
the  North.  The  policy  of  the  advocates  of  the  "  Wilmot  proviso," 
from  the  beginning,  had  been  to  appropriate  the  whole  of  this 
immense  region  exclusively  to  the  North.  Hence  their  uniform 
hostility  to  the  Missouri  compromise,  because  that  was  founded 
upon  the  principle  of  division.  Their  determination  was  to  have 
all.  The  South  was  still  willing  to  divide,  notwithstanding  the 
policy  which  she  ever  advocated  was  to  leave  all  the  territories 
open  for  the  occupancy  and  colonization  of  the  .people  of  the 
whole  country,  from  whatever  section  they  might  emigrate,  with 
the  liberty  of  forming  such  institutions,  upon  a  republican  basis, 
as  they  might  deem  most  conducive  to  their  happiness,  interest, 
and  prosperity,  without  any  congressional  restriction  or  dictation 
whatever.  This  was  always  the  doctrine  maintained  at  the  South. 
She  was  willing  to  divide,  only  as  an  alternative  between  that  and 
a  greater  evil.  To  an  entire  exclusion,  by  act  of  Congress,  she 
had  made  up  her  mind  never  to  submit,  let  consequences  be  what 
they  might.  This  was  the  state  of  things  upon  the  assembling 
of  the  Thirty-first  Congress.  The  events  of  that  Congress  are 
too  recent  and  vivid  upon  the  recollection  of  all  to  need  a 
rehearsal.  >  The  majority  of  the  North  still  proclaimed  their 
determination  to  -appropriate  the  whole  of  the  public  domain  to 
themselves.  Both  sections  stood  in  hostile  array  against  each 


SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND    KANSAS.  403 

other.  The  strife  became  so  embittered  and  fierce  that  legisla 
tion  was  paralyzed,  and  every  thing  seemed  to  threaten  confusion 
and  anarchy .  The  South  again  repeatedly  proposed  a  settlement 
upon  the  Missouri  line.  The  proposition  was  made  in  this 
House,  on  the  part  of  the  South,  for  the  last  time,  on  the  13th 
day  of  June,  1850.  It  was  in  these  words: 

"  Provided,  however,  That  it  shall  be  no  objection  to  the  admission 
into  the  Union  of  any  State  which  may  hereafter  be  formed  out  of  the 
territory  lying  south  of  the  parallel  of  latitude  of  86°  30',  that  the 
constitution  of  said  State  may  authorize  or  establish  African  slavery 
therein." 

This  proposition  was  rejected  in  committee  of  the  whole  upon 
a  count  by  tellers — ayes  78,  noes  89.  It  was  the  last  time,  sir,  it 
was  ever  offered.  When  the  North  had  again, .and  again,  and 
again,  for  three  years,  refused  to  abide  by  it,  the  South,  driven  to 
the  wall  upon  it,  was  thrown  back  upon  her  original  rights  under 
the  constitution.  Her  next  position  was,  that  territorial  restric 
tion  by  Congress  should  be  totally  abandoned,  not  only  south  of 
36°  30r,  but  north  of  that  line  too !  Upon  this  ground  she 
planted  herself  on  the  15th  day  of  June — the  debates  in  this 
House  on  that  day  were  more  exciting,  perhaps,  than  ever  upon 
any  day  since  the  beginning  of  the  government.  It  was  upon 
that  day  I  put  the  question  directly  to  a  distinguished  gentleman 
then  here  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  VINTON,]  whether  he  would  vote  for 
the  admission  of  any  slave  State  into  the  Union,  and  he  refused 
to  say  that  he  would.  The  determination,  as  manifested  by  the 
votes  of  the  majority  of  the  North,  was  to  apply  legislative  re 
striction  over  the  whole  of  the  common  territory,  in  open  and 
shameless  disregard  of  the  principles  of  the  so-called  Missouri 
compromise,  notwithstanding  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  says 
that  it  has  been  adhered  to  and  held  inviolate  for  thirty  years. 
It  was  on  that  day,  sir,  that  a  aistinguished  colleague  of  mine, 
[Mr.  TOOMBS,]  then  on  this  floor,  now  in  the  other  wing  of  the 
Capitol,  made  that  speech  which  has  become  somewhat  famous  in 
our  State,  in  which  he  said,  with  eloquence  seldom  heard  within 
these  walls : 

"  We  do  not  oppose  California  on  account  of  the  anti-slavery  clause  in 
her  constitution.  It  was  her  right,  and  I  am  not  even  prepared  to  say 
that  she  acted  unwisely  in  its  exercise — that  is  her  business  ;  but  I  stand 
upon  the  great  principle  that  the  South  has  a  right  to  an  equal  participa 
tion  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States." 

-£**###### 

"  Deprive  us  of  this  right  and  appropriate  this  common  property  to 
yourselves — it  .is  then  your  government,  not  mine.  Then  I  am  its  enemy  ; 
and  I  will  then,  if  I  can,  bring  niy  children  and  my  constituents  to  the 
altar  of  liberty,  and,  like  Hamilcar,  I  would  swear  them  to  eternal  hostility 
to  your  foul  domination.  Give  us  our  just  rights,  and  we  are  ready,  as 
ever  heretofore,  to  stand  by  the  Union,  every  part  of  it,  and  its  every  in* 
terest ;  refuse  it,  and,  for  one,  I  will  strike  for  independence." 


404  SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS. 

It  was  then,  when  the  North  had  refueed  all  compromise,  and 
went  into  the  contest  for  "  the  whole  or  none,"  that  the  South 
took  up  the  gauge,  planted  herself  upon  her  original  ground, 
armed,  as  she  conceived,  in  the  panoply  of  truth  ;  and  her  repre 
sentatives  boldly  meeting  those  arrayed,  not  only  against  her 
rights,  but  a  great  principle  of  free  government,  face  to  face,  said : 

"  Lay  on,  Macduff ; 
And  damn'd  be  he  that  first  cries,  Hold,  enough !" 

The  grounds  she  then  took  were,  that  there  should  be  no  settle 
ment  of  this  territorial  controversy,  but  upon  the  recognition  of 
her  original  principles,  which  were,  that  all  congressional  restric 
tions  upon  this  subject  were  wrong,  and  should  be  totally  aban 
doned.  This  was  the  basis  of  her  ultimatum,  as  then  proclaimed. 
It  was  offered  in  this  House  on  the  15th  day  of  June,  1850.  No 
decision  was  had  on  it.  It  was  offered  two  days  after  in  the 
Senate  to  the  then  pending  compromise  bill  in  the  Senate.  This 
proposition  was  in  these  words : 

'•And1  when  the  said  territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same,  shall  be  ad 
mitted  as  a  State,  it  shall  be  received  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  their  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  admission." 

The  whole  question  of  slavery  or  no  slavery  was  to  be  left  to 
the  determination  of  the  people  of  the  territories,  whether  north 
or  south  of  36°  30r,  or  any  other  line.  The  question  was  to  be 
taken  out  of  Congress,  where  it  had  been  improperly  thrust  from 
the  beginning,  and  to  be  left  to  the  people  concerned  in  the  matter 
to  decide  for  themselves.  This,  I  say,  was  the  position  originally 
held  by  the  South,  when  the  Missouri  restriction  was  at  first  pro 
posed.  The  principle  upon  which  that  position  rests  lies  at  the 
very  foundation  of  all  our  republican  institutions  ;  it  is  that  the 
citizens  of  every  distinct  and  separate  community  or  State  should 
have  the  right  to  govern  themselves  in  their  domestic  matters  as 
they  please,  and  that  they  should  be  free  from  intermeddling 
restrictions  and  arbitrary  dictation  on  such  matters,  from  any 
other  power  or  government  in  which  they  have  no  voice.  It  was 
out  of  a  violation  of  this  very  principle,  to  a  great  extent,  that 
the  war  of  the  Revolution  sprung.  The  South  was  always  on  the 
republican  side  of  this  question,  while  the  North — no ;  or,  at 
least,  I  will  not  say  the  entire  North,  for  there  have  always  been 
some  of  them  with  the  South  on  this  question ;  but  I  will  say, 
while  a  majority  of  the  North,  under  the  free-soil  lead  of  that 
section,  up  to  the  settlement  of  the  contest  in  1850 — were  on  the 
opposite  side. 

The  doctrine  of  the  restrictionists  or  free-soilers,  or  those  who 
hold  that  Congress  ought  to  impose  their  arbitrary  mandates 
upon  the  people  of  the  territories  in  this  particular,  whether  the 
people  be  willing  or  unwilling,  is  the  doctrine  of  Lord  North  and 
his  adherents  in  the  British  Parliament  toward  the  colonies 
during  his  administration.  He  and  they  claimed  the  right  to 


SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  405 

govern  the  colonies  "in  all  cases  whatsoever,"  notwithstanding 
the  want  of  representation  on  their  part.  The  doctrine  of  the 
South  upon  this  question  has  been,  and  is,  the  doctrine  of  the 
whigs  in  1775  and  1776.  It  involves  the  principle  that  the  citi 
zens  of  every  community  should  have  a  voice  in  their  government. 
This  was  the  doctrine  of  the  people  of  Boston  in  1775,  when  the 
response  was  made  throughout  the  colonies.  "  The  cause  of  Boston 
is  the  cause  of  us  all."  And  if  there  be  any  here  now  who  call 
themselves  whigs  arrayed  against  this  great  principle  of  republi 
can  government,  I  will  do  toward  them  as  Burke  did  in  England  ; 
I  will  appeal  from  "the  new  to  the  old  whigs." 

I  say  nothing  of  the  constitutional  view  of  the  question.  When 
1  have  been  asked  if  Congress  does  not  possess  the  power  to  im 
pose  restrictions  or  to  pass  the  "Wilmot  proviso,"!  have  waived 
that  issue ;  I  never  discuss  it.  On  that  point  I  have  told  my 
constituents,  and  I  tell  you,  I  treat  it  as  Chatham  treated  it  in 
the  •  British  Parliament,  when  the  question  of  power  to  tax  the 
colonies  without  representation  was  raised  there.  That  question 
Chatham  would  not  discuss ;  but  he  told  those  who  were  so 
unjustly  exercising  it,  that  if  he  were  an  American  he  would  re 
sist  it.  The  question  of  power  is  not  the  question ;  the  question 
is,  is  it  right  thus  to  exercise  it  ?  Is  it  consistent  with  represen 
tative  republican  government  to  do  it  ?  That  is  the  question. 
Where  do  you  new  latter-day  whigs  from  the  North  stand  on 
this  question  ?  Will  you  take  the  side  of  Lord  North  and  the 
British  tories,  and  maintain  that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  great 
government,  with  its  superior  wisdom,  to  legislate  for  the  freemen 
of  this  country,  as  free-born  as  j^ourselves,  who  quit  your  State 
jurisdictions  and  seek  new  homes  in  the  West? 

And  where  do  you,  calling  yourselves  democrats  from  the 
North,  stand  upon  this  great  question  of  popular  rights  ?  Do 
you  consider  it  democratic  to  exercise  the  high  prerogative  of 
stifling  the  voice  of  the  adventurous  pioneer  and  restricting  his 
suffrage  in  a  matter  concerning  his  own  interest,  happiness,  and 
government,  which  he  is  much  more  capable  of  deciding  than  you 
are  ?  As  for  myself  and  the  friends  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  we 
think  that  our  fellow-citizens  who  go  to  the  frontier,  penetrate  the 
wilderness,  cut  down  the  forests,  till  the  soil,  erect  school-houses 
and  churches,  extend  civilization,  and  lay  the  foundation  of  future 
States  and  empires,  do  not  lose  by  their  change  of  place,  in  hope 
of  bettering  their  condition,  either  their  capacity  for  self-govern 
ment  or  their  just  rights  to  exercise  it,  conformably  to  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

We  of  the  South  are  willing  that  they  should  exercise  it  upon 
the  subject  of  the  condition  of  the  African  race  amongst  them,  as 
well  as  upon  other  questions  of  domestic  policy.  If  they  see  fit  to 
let  them  hold  the  same  relation  to  the  white  race  which  they  do  in 
the  southern  States,  from  the  conviction  that  it  is  better  for  both 
races  that  they  should,  let  them  do  it.  If  they  see  fit  to  place  them 


406  SPEECH    ON    NEBRASKA    AND    KANSAS. 

on  the  same  footing  they  occupy  in  the  northern  States,  that  is, 
without  the  rights  of  a  citizen  or  the  protection  of  a  master,  out 
casts  from  society,  in  worse  condition  than  Cain,  who,  though 
sent  forth  as  a  vagabond,  yet  had  a  mark  upon  him  that  no  man 
should  hurt  him — I  say,  if  they  choose  to  put  this  unfortunate  race 
on  that  footing,  let  them  do  it.  That  is  a  matter  that  we  believe 
the  people  there  can  determine  for  themselves  better  than  we  can 
for  them.  We  do  not  ask  you  to  force  southern  institutions  or 
our  form  of  civil  polity  upon  them ;  but  to  let  the  free  emigrants 
to  our  vast  public  domain,  in  every  part  and  parcel  of  it,  settle 
this  question  for  themselves,  with  all  the  experience,  intelligence, 
virtue,  and  patriotism  they  may  carry  with  them.  This,  sir,  is  our 
position.  It  is,  as  I  have  said,  the  original  position  of  the  South. 
It  is  the  position  she  was  thrown  back  upon  in  June,  1850.  It 
rests  upon  that  truly  national  and  American  principle  set  forth  in 
the  amendment  offered  in  the  Senate  on  the  17th  of  June,  which  I 
have  stated ;  and  it  was  upon  the  adoption  of  this  principle  that 
that  most  exciting  and  alarming  controversy  was  adjusted.  This 
was  the  turning  point ;  upon  it  every  thing  depended,  so  far  as 
that  compromise  was  concerned. 

I  well  recollect  the  intensity  of  interest  felt  upon  the  fate  of  that 
proposition  in  the  Senate.  Upon  its  rejection  in  the  then  state  of 
the  public  mind  depended  consequences  which  no  human  forecast 
could  see  or  estimate.  The  interest  was  enhanced  from  the  great 
uncertainty  and  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  the  vote.  Several  north 
ern  senators,  who  had  before  yielded  the  question  of  positive 
restriction — that  is,  the  "  Wilmot  Proviso" — had  given  no  indica 
tion  of  how  they  would  act  upon  this  clear  declaration  that  the 
people  of  the  territories  might,  in  the  formation  of  their  State  con 
stitutions,  determine  this  question  for  themselves.  Among  these 
was .  Mr.  Webster.  Just  before  the  question  was  put,  and  while 
anxiety  was  producing  its  most  torturing  effects,  this  most  re 
nowned  statesman  from  New  England  arose  to  address  the  Senate. 
An  immense  crowd  was  in  attendance.  The  lobby,  as  well  as  the 
galleries,  were  full.  All  eyes  were  instantly  turned  toward  him, 
and  all  ears  eager  to  catch  every  word  that  should  fall  from  his 
lips  upon  this,  the  most  important  question,  perhaps,  which  had 
ever  been  decided  by  an  American  Senate.  His  own  vote,  even, 
might  turn  the  scale.  That  speech  I  now  have  before  me.  In  it 
he  declared  himself  for  the  amendment.  His  conclusion  was  in 
these  words : 

"  Sir,  my  object  is  peace — my  object  is  reconciliation.  My  purpose  is 
not  to  make  up  a  case  for  the  North,  or  to  make  up  a  case  for  the  South. 
My  object  is  not  to  continue  useless  and  irritating  controversies.  I  am 
against  agitators  North  and  South;  I  am  against  local  ideas  North  and 
South,  and  against  all  narrow  and  local  contests.  I  am  an  American,  and 
I  know  no  locality  in  America.  That  is  my  country.  My  heart,  my  sen 
timents,  my  judgment,  demand  of  me  that  I  should  pursue  such  a  course 
as  shall  promote  the  good,  and  the  harmony,  and  the  union  of  the  whole 
country.  This  I  shall  do,  God  willing,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter." 


SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  407 

The  reporter  says : 

["  The  honorable  Senator  resumed  his  seat  amidst  the  general  applause 
from  the  gallery."] 

Yes,  sir ;  he  did.  I  was  there,  and  witnessed  the  scene ;  and  no 
one,  I  fancy,  who  was  there,  can  ever  forget  that  scene.  Every 
heart  beat  easier.  The  friends  of  the  measure  felt  that  it  was  safe. 
The  vote  was  taken — the  amendment  was  adopted.  The  result 
was  soon  communicated  from  the  galleries,  and,  finding  its  way 
through  every  passage  and  outlet  to  the  rotunda,  was  received 
with  exultation  by  the  crowd  there ;  with  quick  steps  it  was  borne 
through  the  city;  and  in  less  than  five  minutes,  perhaps,  the 
electric  wires  were  trembling  with  the  gladsome  news  to  the  re 
motest  parts  of  the  country.  It  was  news  well  calculated  to  make 
a  nation  leap  with  joy,  as  it  did,  because  it  was  the  first  step  taken 
toward  the  establishment  of  that  great  principle  upon  which  this 
territorial  question  was  disposed  of,  adjusted,  and  settled  in  1850. 
It  was  a  new  step  in  our  governmental  history.  From  the  begin 
ning,  nothing  had  been  the  cause  or  source  of  so  much  sectional 
feeling  and  strife  as  this  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories — a 
question  so  nearly  allied  in  principle  to  the  old  controversy  between 
the  colonies  and  the  mother  country. 

With  the  colonies  the  question  was  not  so  much  the  amount  of 
taxation ;  it  was  not  the  small  duty  on  tea — that  was  far  from 
being  oppressive — but  it  was  the  principle  on  which  it  was  placed ; 
it  was  the  principle  asserted  and  maintained  in  the  "preamble," 
that  our  forefathers  resisted  by  arms.  And  Mr.  Webster  well  said, 
on  some  occasion,  that  the  American  Revolution  was  "  fought 
against  a  preamble."  That  preamble  asserted  the  right,  or  power, 
of  the  home  government  to  govern  the  colonies  in  all  cases.  It 
was  against  that  principle  the  war  was  commenced. 

The  cause  of  right  in  which  the  men  of  '76  engaged,  was  vindi 
cated  in  the  success  of  the  revolution  and  the  disruption  of  the 
British  empire.  And,  as  a  coincidence  worthy  to  be  noted,  it  so 
happened  that  this  kindred  principle  of  the  proper  and  just  rights 
of  the  people  of  our  territories,  or  colonies,  made  its  first  step 
toward  ultimate  success  on  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill.  It  was  on  the  ever  memorable  17th  day  of  June.  It  was  on 
that  day  (1775)  the  blow  was  struck,  by  the  colonists  at  Boston, 
against  the  unwise,  unjust,  and  arbitrary  policy  of  Lord  North, 
And  it  was  on  the  same  day,  just  seventy-five  years  after,  that  the 
unwise,  unjust,  and  arbitrary  policy,  to  say  no  more  of  it,  of  this 
general  government — attempting  to  compel  the  people  of  our  ter 
ritories  to  adopt  such  institutions  as  may  please  a  majority  of 
Congress,  without  consulting  the  rights,  interests,  or  wishes  of 
those  immediately  concerned — was,  for  the  first  time,  abandoned 
by  the  American  Senate  without  a  blow.  It  is  fortunate  for  us, 
and  fortunate  for  millions  that  shall  come  after  us,  that  it  was 
abandoned  without  a  blow.  Had  the  restrictionists  of  this  country 
beld  out  as  Lord  North's  ministry  did  in  their  policy,  it  might 


4:08  SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS. 

have  ended  in  consequences  most  disastrous  to  our  common  well- 
being,  and  the  hopes  of  mankind.  But  they  did  not.  The  power 
of  truth  prevailed.  Patriotism  trampled  over  faction.  And  as 
soon  as  this  great  American  principle — I  so  call  it  because  it  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  all  our  republican  institutions — was  vindicated 
in  the  Senate,  the  House  did  not  again  resume  the  subject.  We 
waited  until  the  bills  came  from  the  Senate.  The  same  provision 
as  that  I  have  read  was  put  in  the  New  Mexico  bill.  That  swept 
away  the  restriction  that  had  been  put  in  the  Texas  annexation 
resolutions  over  all  that  part  of  Texas  lying  north  of  36°  30',  in 
cluded  in  the  present  territory  of  New  Mexico.  The  House  took 
up  these  bills,  after  they  were  passed  by  the  Senate  with  these 
amendments,  with  this  new  principle  incorporated  in  them,  and 
gave  them  their  sanction. 

This,  sir,  is  what  is  called  the  compromise  of  1850,  so  far  as  this 
territorial  question  is  cdncerned.  It  was  adopted  after  the  policy 
of  dividing  territory  between  the  two  sections,  North  and  South, 
was  wholly  abandoned,  discarded,  and  spurned  by  the  North.  It 
was  based  upon  the  truly  republican  and  national  policy  of  taking 
this  disturbing  element  out  of  Congress,  and  leaving  the  whole 
question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  to  the  people,  there  to  settle 
it  for  themselves.  And  it  is  in  vindication  of  that  new  principle — 
then  established  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  our  govern 
ment — in  the  year  1850,  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century — 
that  we,  the  friends  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  whether  from  the  North 
or  South,  now  call  upon  this  House  and  the  country  to  carry  out 
in  good  faith,  and  give  effect  to  the  spirit  and  intent  of  those  im 
portant  measures  of  territorial  legislation.  The  principle  of  those 
territorial  acts  was  utterly  inconsistent  with  every  thing  like  Con 
gressional  restriction.  This  is  what  we  wish  to  declare  And 
this  principle,  carried  out  in  good  faith,  necessarily  renders  all 
antecedent  legislation  inconsistent  with  it  inoperative  and  void. 
This,  also,  we  propose  to  declare. 

The  restriction  imposed  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820 
— thrown  into  that  act  out  of  place  and  without  any  legitimate 
connection  with  ft,  like  a  fifth  wheel  to  a  wagon — is  just  such  an 
tecedent  legislation.  The  principle  on  which  it  was  based  has 
been  abandoned,  totally  abandoned,  as  I  have  shown,  by  those 
who  now  contend  for  it,  and  superseded  by  another,  a  later,  a  bet 
ter,  and  a  much  more  national  and  republican  one.  We  do  not  pro 
pose  to  repeal  "  any  compact,"  or  to  violate  faith  in  any  sense — we 
only  invoke  you  to  stand  upon  the  territorial  principle  established 
by  what  is  known  as  the  compromise  of  1850.  That  has  alread}r 
received  the  sanction  of  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  American 
people,  as  I  doubt  not  it  always  will  receive  when  fairly  presented. 
I  have  seen  it  suggested,  that  if  a  proposition  should  be  made  to 
extend  the  provisions  of  this  bill  to  the  guarantee  to  the  South  in 
the  Texas  annexation  resolutions  for  the  admission  of  slave  States 
from  Texas  south  of  36°  30',  that  such  proposition  would  certainly 


SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  409 

defeat  it.  By  no  means,  sir ;  those  who  reason  thus  show  nothing 
so  clearly  as  how  little  they  understand  the  real  merits  of  the 
question. 

That  guarantee,  secured  in  the  Texas  resolutions,  so  far  as  the 
character  of  the  institutions  of  such  States,  hereafter  to  be  formed, 
is  concerned — that  is,  whether  they  be  slave  or  free — is,  itself, 
in  perfect  accordance  with  the  present  provisions  of  this  bill. 
That  guarantee  was  not  that  those  new  States  should  be  slave 
States,  but  that  the  people  there  might  do  as  they  please  upon  the 
subject.  The  reason  that  the  guarantee  was  important,  at  the 
time,  was,  because  the  policy  of  Congressional  restriction  had  not 
then  been  abandoned.  The  South  never  asked  any  discrimination 
in  her  favor  from  your  hands.  All  that  the  South  secured  by 
those  resolutions,  so  far  as  the  character  of  the  States  is  concerned, 
was,  simply,  that  they  should  be  admitted  at  a  proper  time,  "  either 
with  or  without  slavery,"  as  the  people  may  determine.  As  to  the 
number  of  States,  that  is  a  different  question.  So  that  if  you 
should  repeal  that  so  called  guarantee  for  slave  States,  by  extend 
ing  this,  bill  to  that  country,  you  would  only  erase  to  fill  again, 
with  the  same  words.  We  ask  no  discrimination  in  our  favor. 
And  all  we  ask  of  you  men  of  the  North  is,  that  you  make  none  in 
your  own.  And,  why  should  you  ?  Why  should  you  even  have 
the  desire  to  do  it  ?  Why  should  you  not  be  willing  to  remove 
this  question  forever  from  Congress,  and  leave  it  to  the  people  of 
the  territories,  according  to  the  compromise  of  1850  ?  You  have 
greatly  the  advantage  of  us  in  population.  The  white  population 
of  the  United  States  is  now  over  twenty  millions.  Of  this  number, 
the  free  States  have  more  than  two  to  one,  compared  with  the 
South.  There  are  only  a  little  over  three  millions  of  slaves. 

If  immigration  into  the  territories,  then,  should  be  assumed  to 
go  on  in  the  ratio  of  population,  we  must  suppose  that  there  would 
be  near  seven  white  persons  to  one  slave  at  least ;  and  of  these 
seven,  two  from  the  free  States  to  one  from  the  South.  This  is 
without  taking  into  the  estimation  the  immense  foreign  immigra 
tion.  With  such  an  advantage  are  you  afraid  to  trust  this  ques 
tion  with  your  own  people  ? — men  reared  under  the  influence  of 
your  own  boasted  superior  institutions  ?  With  all  the  prejudices 
of  birth  and  education  against  us,  are  you  afraid  to  let  them  judge 
for  themselves  ?  Are  your  "free-born  "  sons,  who  never  "breathed 
the  tainted  air  of  slavery,"  such  nincompoops  that  they  cannot  be 
" trusted  out  without  their  mothers'  leave?"  It  must  be  so,  or 
else  another  inference  is  legitimate  and  clear ;  and  that  is,  that 
notwithstanding  all  your  denunciations  of  the  "  hated  and  accursed 
institution,"  you  have  an  inward  consciousness  that  it  is  not  so 
bad  after  all,  and  that  the  only  way  you  can  keep  wise,  intelligent, 
and  Christian  men,  even  from  New  England  itself,  from  adopting 
it,  is  to  set  yourselves  up  as  self-constituted  guardians  and  law 
makers  for  them.  I  consider  your  policy  and  the  tenacit}^  with 
which  you  hold  to  it,  as  the  fullest  and  amplest  vindication  of  tha 


410  SPEECH    ON   NEBRASKA    AND    KANSAS. 

institutions  of  the  South  against  all  your  misrepresentations,  abuse, 
and  billingsgate  about  them. 

I  think,  sir,  I  have  shown  conclusively  that  the  line  of  36°  30', 
known  as  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  never  was  a1"  compact,"  in 
any  proper  sense  of  that  term.  And  even  if  it  was  that  it  has  been 
disregarded,  broken,  and  trampled  under  foot  by  the  parties  who 
have  lately  so  signalized  themselves  as  its  champions  and  defenders. 
I  have  shown,  that  while  the  South  was  opposed  to  the  policy  by 
which  it  was  adopted,  and  took  it  as  a  disagreeable  alternative, 
yet  she  never  offered  to  disturb  it,  but  was  willing  to  abide  by  it 
for  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony.  I  have  shown,  also,  that  the 
present  measure  is  no  "  breach  of  faith,"  but  that  its  object  is  to 
carry  out  and  give  effect  to  the  great  territorial  principle  established 
in  1850. 

It  remains  for  me  now  to  say  something  upon  the  last  part  of 
the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Vermont;  and  that  is,  the  great 
excitement  that  this  measure  is  likely  to  produce.  The  country 
was  in  peace  and  quiet,  says  the  gentleman,  until  this  bill  was  in 
troduced.  Well,  sir,  who  raises  any  excitement  now  ?  Whence 
does  the  opposition  come?  And  what  are  the  reasons  for  it? 
The  North,  it  is  said,  is  to  be  excited.  And  excited  about  what  ? 
Why,  because  Congress,  when  this  bill  passes,  will  have  recognized 
the  territorial  principle  established  in  1850,  and  declared  all  ante 
cedent  legislation  over  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
inconsistent  with  that  principle  inoperative  and  void.  And  what 
is  the  harm  or  mischief  to  be  done  ?  Why,  nothing,  but  extending 
to  the  freeman  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  that  privilege  which  ought 
to  be  the  birthright  of-  every  American  citizen — to  have  a  voice  in 
forming  the  institutions,  and  passing  the  laws  under  which  he  is 
to  live.  That  is  all.  Who,  then,  is  to  be  agitated  at  this  mon 
strous  outrage  ?  Why,  nobody  but  those  who  wish  to  impose  an 
unjust  restriction  upon  a  freeman's  franchise ;  nobody  but  those 
who  deny  to  a  portion  of  their  fellow-citizens  a  fitness  or  capacity 
for  republican  government.  Nobody  but  those  who  would  main 
tain  the  same  policy  on  the  part  of  the  general  government  toward 
the  people  of  the  territories  which  Lord  North  and  his  tory  con 
federates,  on  the  part  of  England,  held  toward  the  colonies.  That 
there  may  be,  and  that  there  are,  some  such  bodies,  I  do  not  doubt. 
But  who  are  they,  and  what  is  their  force  ?  They  are  nothing  but 
the  fragments  of  the  old  "Wilmot  proviso,"  "  Free-Soil,"  and 
"Abolition  Phalanx,"  attempting  to  rally  their  broken  and  routed 
columns  by  this  hypocritical  cry  about  the  sacredness  of  compacts. 
Whoever  expected  to  see  the  New  York  Tribune  and  the  Evening 
Post,  and  such  newspapers,  pouring  forth  their  invocations  in 
behalf  of  the  "sanctity  of  the  Missouri  compromise?"  The  men 
who  thus  cry  aloud  now  are  the  very  same  who  denounced  every 
man  at  the  North  who  voted  to  maintain  that  line,  while  the  ques 
tion  was  open,  as  a  "dough  face  "  and  "traitor."  They  thought 
then  that  they  had  the  world  in  a  swing,  and  would  have  every 


SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS. 

thing  their  own  way ;  not  satisfied  to  have  "  the  Wilmot "  fixed 
upon  all  territory  north  of  36°  30',  they  determined  to  have  it 
fixed  upon  the  whole  of  the  public  domain.  With  this  spirit  they 
went  into  the  contest.  And  so  far  from  getting  it  fixed  where  it 
was  not,  they  came  out  of  the  contest  with  the  establishment  of  a 
principle,  which  took  it  off  where  it  was  fixed  before.  Like  the 
man  that  failed  properly  to  use  his  talent,  they  had  taken  away 
from  them  "  even  that  which  they  had."  They  went  a  "  wooling," 
and  came  back  thoroughly  "  fleeced"  themselves — hence  their  des 
peration.  That  such  men  may  rail,  and  rave,  and  rage,  may  be 
expected.  Let  them  rage  on.  Had  they,  and  men  of  like  opin 
ions  before  them,  never  thrust  their  unjust  and  anti-republican 
territorial  policy  in  the  halls  of  Congress,  there  never  would 
have  been  sectional  strife  within  these  walls.  Whatever  of  party 
conflicts  we  might  have  had  growing  out  of  questions  of  legislation 
for  so  vast  a  country  as  ours  is,  with  all  its  complicated  and  diver 
sified  interests,  we  should  have  been  saved  from  this  lamentable 
quarrelling  about  State  institutions,  which  threatened  such  fearful 
consequences  in  1850. 

But,  sir,  we  are  told  that  discord  once  reigned  in  heaven.  The 
evil  spirit  of  pride  and  ambition,  craving  powers  and  prerogatives 
not  proper  or  legitimate,  entered  the  breasts  of  those  admitted 
even  to  the  presence  of  the  Most  High ;  jealousy,  envy,  and  hate 
produced  not  only  words,  but  blows,  between  archangels  minis 
tering  round  his  throne. 

"  Long  time  in  even  scale 
The  battle  hung." 

These  unholy  conflicts,  so  unsuited  to  that  place,  were  never 
composed  until  Heaven's  First-Born,  clothed  in  the  majesty  of 
divine  power,  arose  and  hurled  the  factious  hosts  from  the  empy 
rean  -battlements  to  the  bottomless  pit  below. 

"  Nine  days  they  fell ;  confounded  chaos  roared, 
And  felt  tenfold  confusion,  in  their  fall, 
Through  his  wild  Anarchy  :  so  huge  a  rout 
Encumber'd  him  with  ruin.     Hell,  at  last, 
Yawning,  received  them  whole,  and  on  them  closed : 
Hell,  their  fit  habitation,  fraught  with  fire 
Unquenchable,  the  house  of  woe  and  pain. 
Disburden'd  Heaven  rejoiced,  and  soon  repaired 
Her  mural  breach,  returning  whence  it  rolled." 

From  that  profound  deep,  below  which  there  was  no  lower 
deep,  they  still  sent  up  much  cursing,  wailing,  howling,  and 
hissing. 

So,  sir  in  these  halls,  sacred  to  national  purposes,  and  those 
objects  for  which  the  government  was  formed,  we  have  had  peace- 
destroying  feuds  and  unseemly  conflicts  engendered  and  insti- 
gaced  by  the  fell  demon  of  "  Restriction,"  or  "  Wilmot  proviso," 
which  once  stalked  with  insolent  brow,  in  our  very  midst.  These 


412  SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA  AND   KANSAS. 

scenes  lasted  until  the  Genius  of  our  country  rose  in  its  might,  on 
the  1*7 th  of  June,  1850,  armed  with  the  great  American  principle  of 
self-government,  which  had  borne  our  fathers  through  the  struggle 
of  the  revolution,  and  drove  the  hideous  monster,  with  all  his  impi 
ous  crew,  from  the  Capitol — cast  them  out  and  hurled  them  down 
ward  to  that  low  deep  from  which  their  plaintive  howls  now  ascend. 

These  convocations  at  the  Tabernacle  and  at  Chicago  and  else 
where — the  ravings  of  the  infidel  preacher,  Theodore  Parker,  and 
all  his  weaker  followers — are  but  the  repetition  of  the  pandemo 
nium  scenes ;  there  consultations  were  held,  and  grave  debate 
had,  how  the  banished  fiends  should  regain  their  lost  estate, 
"Whether  by  open  war  or  covert  guile."  These  manifestations 
may  be  expected.  We  have  had  them  before — yea,  and  much 
more  violent,  too.  When  the  compromise  of  1850  was  passed, 
these  same  men  declared  open  war  against  its  provisions.  "  Re 
peal!"  "  Repeal!"  was  blazoned  upon  their  banners;  mobs  were 
got  up  in  Boston,  in  Syracuse,  and  at  Christiana ;  blood  was  shed 
by  these  resisters  of  the  law.  The  spirit  of  the  North  was  ap 
pealed  to  in  fanatic  accents.  That  spirit  answered  in  prompt  and 
patriotic  tones  of  popular  reprobation  at  the  ballot-box,  just  as  it 
will  do  again.  These  threats  of  what  will  be  the  fate  of,  and 
"  political  graves"  of,  northern  men  who  vote  for  this  bill,  can 
fright  nobody  but  old  women  and  timid  children.  They  are 
worse  than  ghost  stories — we  have  heard  them  before. 

I  recollect  well  with  what  eloquence  a  gentleman  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  ROOT]  some  years  ago,  in  this  House,  spoke  of  the  deep 
degradation  that  awaited  every  man  at  the  North  who  should 
dare  to  vote  against  the  Wilmbt  proviso.  No  patronage  of  the 
government  could  save  him ;  no  land  office,  ever  so  remote,  could 
keep  him  from  being  hunted  down,  ferreted  out,  and  held  up  to 
the  just  scorn  of  an  indignant  constituency.  But  his  prophetic 
warning  came  far  short  of  becoming  history.  Northern  men  did 
abandon  the  proviso.  In  doing  so  they  acted  wisely,  justly, 
nobly,  and  patriotically ;  and  so  far  from  digging  their  political 

f  raves  by  the  act,  they  have  but  planted  themselves  deeper  and 
rmer  in  the  hearts,  love,  affection,  and  admiration  of  their  coun 
trymen. 

The  same  "scare-crow"  was  held  up  to  northern  men  who 
occupied  national  ground  on  the  admission  of  Missouri.  It  was 
said  then  that  they  would  find  "their  graves"  in  the  ground 
where  they  stood.  And  some  pretend  now  to  say  that  such  was 
the  fact.  But  in  the  record  I  have  before  me,  I  see,  among' the  very 
few  from  the  North  who  did  then  stand  up  for  the  right  against 
the  huge  clamor  that  was  raised  against  them,  the  names  of  Bald 
win,  from  Pennsylvania ;  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts ;  and  Storrs, 
of  New  York ;  and  Southard,  of  New  Jersey.  Where  did  South 
ard  find  his  grave?  Mr.  Baldwin  was  afterwards  one  of  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Holmes, 
when  Maine  was  admitted  as  a  State,  was  elected  to  the  Senate, 


SPEECH   ON   NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  413 

and  held  that  highly  honorable  post,  for  aught  I  know,  as  long  as 
he  wanted  it. 

Mr.  Storrs,  who  was  a  man  of  great  talents,  never  lost  the  con 
fidence  of  his  constituents.  Had  he  not  been  cut  down  by  death 
at  an  early  age,  he  might,  and  most  probably  would,  have  attained 
the  highest  honors  of  the  country,  not  excepting  the  chief  magis 
tracy  itself.  These  statesmen  found  "political  graves"  where 
many  of  those  who  now  rail  so  fiercely  would,  doubtless,  be  very 
willing  to  find  theirs.  But  of  those  who  espoused  the  side  of  the 
restrictionists  at  that  time  I  do  not  see  the  name  of  a  single  man 
who  ever  attained  high  political  distinction  in  this  country.  Their 
very  memories,  in  most  instances,  have  passed  away,  and  their 
"  graves,"  if  they  have  any,  would  be  about  as  hard  to  find  as  that 
"  of  Moses  in  the  wilderness." 

So  much,  then,  for  these  threats.  They  are  but  the  "ravings," 
and  "howlings,"  and  "hissings"  of  the  beaten  and  routed  ranks 
of  the  factionists  and  malcontents.  They  are  the  wailings  of  the 
politically  condemned,  coming  up  from  the  bottom  of  that  deep 
pit  where  they  have  been  hurled  by  a  patriotic  people  for  the  good, 
the  peace,  quiet,  and  harmony  of  the  whole  country.  We  need 
not  expect  to  silence  them — the  friends  and  advocates  of  the  com 
promise  of  1850  did  not  expect  or  look  for  that  at  the  time.  That 
would  have  been  a  forlorn  hope ;  and  though  many  of  the  enemies 
of  the  compromise,  of  the  North,  who  were  beaten  in  the  great 
battle  of  1852,  have  since  seemingly  surrendered  and  begged  for 
quarters,  pretending  to  be  ready  to  acquiesce,  I  must  be  permitted 
to  say  on  this  occasion,  without  any  wish  to  push  myself  in  the 
New  York  contest,  I  have  very  little  confidence  in  the  integrity 
of  their  professions.  They  fought  the  compromise  as  long  as 
there  was  any  prospect  of  making  any  thing  by  fighting  it. 
When  whipped,  routed,  and  beaten,  then,  like  craven  and  mer 
cenary  captives,  they  turned  to  power,  to  see  if  any  thing  could 
be  made  there  by  subserviency  and  sycophancy.  I  have  no  faith 
in  their  conversion — never  have  had  any.  Warmed  into  life  again  by 
the  genial  rays  of  executive  patronage,  I  have  always  thought,  and 
still  think,  that  they  will  only  become  the  more  formidable  when 
ever  the  occasion  offers  for  their  real  principles  to  manifest  them 
selves.  Hydrophobia  can  never  be  cured — it  will  break  out  on 
the  changes  of  the  moon.  And  so  with  the  disease  of  negro- 
mania.  Sir,  the  viper  will  hiss  and  even  sting  the  bosom  that 
nurtures  and  fosters  it.  Whether  I  am  right  in  this  anticipation, 
or  whether  this  administration  is  right  in  its  present  policy,  we 
shall  see. 

But  we  who  stood  by  the  compromise  of  1850,  and  intend  to 
stand  by  it  now,  and  carry  it  out  in  good  faith,  are  not  to  be 
moved  by  any  clamor  got  up  by  its  old  enemies ;  nor  are  we  to  be 
shaken  in  our  purpose  by  any  mistaken  appeals  in  behalf  of  the 
"  sanctity  of  compacts,"  coming  from  a  source  even  as  respectable 
as  that  of  fhe  National  Intelligencer.  That  paper,  in  a  late  article, 


414  SPEECH    ON   NEBRASKA    AND   KANSAS. 

seems  to  consider  the  line  of  36°  30'  almost  as  binding  as  the  consti 
tution — the  bare  " suggestion"  for  a  departure  from  which  should 
arouse  the  friends  of  the  constitution  everywhere.  If  so,  why 
did  not  that  paper  raise  the  alarm  in  1836,  when  Mr.  Adams,  in 
this  House,  backed  by  fifty-two  northern  votes,  made  something 
more  than  "a  suggestion"  to  depart  from  it? 

In  1845,  when  a  majority  of  the  North  voted  against  the  annex 
ation  of  Texas  with  this  line  in  it,  why  was  not  its  voice  again 
raised?  In  184*7  and  1848,  when  it  was  completely  set  at 
naught  and  trampled  upon  by  the  North,  as  I  have  shown,  why 
was  it  not  then  raised  ?  Then  the  contest  was  fierce  and  hot 
between  those  who  stood  by  that  line  and  those  who  were  for  its 
total  obliteration.  For  three  long  years  when  this  contest  raged, 
why  did  the  Intelligencer  never  say  one  word  in  behalf  of  its 
maintenance  and  preservation  ?  That  was  certainly  the  time  for 
any  one  who  regarded  it  as  imbued  with  "  sanctity  "  and  "  sacred- 
ness"  to  speak.  It  is  too  late  now.  The  old  principle  in  our  ter 
ritorial  policy  has  passed  away,  and  we  have  in  its  stead  a  new 
one.  We  are  not,  therefore,  to  be  shaken  in  our  purpose  to  carry 
out  this  new  principle  by  any  such  clamor  or  appeals.  Our  pur 
pose  is  fixed,  and  our  course  is  onward.  What  little  agitation 
may  be  got  up  in  Congress,  or  out  of  it,  while  this  debate  lasts, 
will  speedily  subside,  as  soon  as  this  new  principle  is  once  more 
vindicated.  Why  do  you  hear  no  more  wrangling  here  about 
slavery  and  freedom  in  Utah  and  New  Mexico  ?  Because  by  this 
new  principle,  the  irritating  cause  was  cast  out  of  Congress,  and 
turned  over  to  the  people,  who  are  most  capable  of  disposing  of 
it  for  themselves.  Pass  this  bill — the  sooner  the  better — and  the 
same  result  will  ensue.  This  shows  the  wisdom  and  statesman 
ship  of  those  jby  whom  this  principle  was  adopted  as  our  settled 
policy  on  this  subject  in  1850.  A  cinder  in  the  eye  will  irritate 
and  inflame  it,  until  you  get  it  out ;  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  will  do 
the  same  thing.  The  best  remedy  is  to  remove  it  immediately. 
That  is  just  what  the  compromise  of  1850  proposes  to  do  with 
this  slavery  question  in  the  territories  whenever  it  arises.  Cast 
it  out  of  Congress,  and  leave  it  to  the  people,  to  whom  it  very 
properly  and  rightfully  belongs. 

In  behalf  of  this  principle,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  to-day 
address  this  House,  not  as  partisans — neither  as  whigs  or  demo 
crats,  but  as  Americans.  I  do  not  know  what  you  call  me,  or 
how  you  class  me,  whether  as  whig  or  democrat,  in  your  politi 
cal  vocabulary,  nor  do  I  care.  Principles  should  characterize 
parties,  and  not  names.  I  call  myself  a  republican,  and  I  would 
invoke  you,  one  and  all,  to  'come  up  and  sustain  this  great  repub 
lican  American  policy,  established  in  1850,  for  the  permanent 
peace,  progress,  and  glory  of  our  common  country.  If  any  of 
you  are  convinced  of  its  propriety  and  correctness,  but  are  afraid 
that  your  constituents  are  not  equally  convinced,  follow  the 
example  of  Mr.  Webster,  after  his  7th  of  March  speech,  when 


SPEECH   ON  NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  415 

the  doors  of  Faneuil  Hall  were  closed  against  him.  Meet  your  con 
stituents,  if  need  be  in  the  open  air,  and,  face  to  face,  tell  them 
they  are  wrong,  and  you  are  right.  I  think,  sir,  that  great  man, 
on  no  occasion  of  his  life,  ever  appeared  to  greater  advantage  in 
the  display  of  those  moral  qualities  which  mark  those  entitled  to 
lasting  fame,  than  he  did  in  the  speech  he  made  in  an  open 
barouche  before  the  Revere  House,  in  Boston,  to  three  thousand 
people  who  had  assembled  to  hear  what  reason  he  had  to  give  for 
his  course  in  the  Senate.  He  stood  as  Burke  before  the  people 
of  Bristol,  or  as  Aristides  before  the  people  of  Athens,  when  he 
told  them  above  all  things  to  be  "just."  In  that  speech  Mr. 
Webster  told  the  people  of  Boston,  You  have  conquered  an  inhos 
pitable  climate ;  you  have  conquered  a  sterile  and  barren  soil ; 
you  have  conquered  the  ocean  that  washes  your  shores  ;  you  have 
fought  your  way  to  the  respect  and  esteem  of  mankind,  but  you 
have  yet  to  "  conquer  your  prejudices.  That  was  indeed  speaking 
"  vera  pro  gratis."  And  that  was  a  scene  for  the  painter  or  sculp 
tor  to  perpetuate  the  man  in  the  exhibition  of  his  noblest  qualities 
far  more  worthy  than  the  occasion  of  his  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne,  or  his 
great  1th  of  March  speech.  Imitate  his  example — never  lose  the 
consciousness  that  "  Truth  is  mighty  and  will  ultimately  prevail." 
The  great  "truth"  as  to  the  right  principle  of  disposing  of  this 
slavery  quesion  in  the  territories,  was  first  proclaimed  by  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  in  1850.  It  was  as  oil  upon  the  waters. 
It  gave  quiet  and  repose  to  a  distracted  country.  Let  it  be  the 
pride  of  us  all  in  this  Congress  to  re-affirm  the  principle — make  it  co 
extensive  with  your  limits — inscribe  it  upon  your  banners — make 
it  broad  as  your  constitution — proclaim  it  everywhere,  that  the 
people  of  the  common  territories  of  the  Union,  wherever  the  flag 
floats,  shall  have  the  right  to  form  such  republican  institutions  as 
they  please.  Let  this  be  our  pride;  and  then  with  a  common 
feeling  in  the  memories  and  glories  of  the  past,  we  can  all,  from 
every  State,  section,  and  territory,  look  with  hopeful  anticipa 
tions  to  that  bright  prospect  in  the  future  which  beckons  us  on  in 
our  progress  to  a  still  higher  degree  of  greatness,  power,  and 
renown. 


416  SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 


SPEECH  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  REMARKS  OF  MR.  MACE, 
OF  INDIANA,  ON  GIVING  NOTICE  OF  HIS  INTEN 
TION  TO  INTRODUCE  A  BILL  TO  RESTORE  THE 
MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

DECEMBER  14,  1854 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  In  taking  the  floor  on  this  occasion,  it  was  not 
my  purpose,  nor  is  it  my  purpose  now,  to  re-open  or  go  into  a  dis 
cussion  of  the  general  merits  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  which 
was  passed  at  the  last  session  of  Congress.  The  gentleman  from 
Indiana  [Mr.  MACE]  came  forward  on  yesterday,  and,  in  a  very 
formal  manner,  announced  the  determination,  for  the  future,  of  the 
opponents  to  that  measure.  Repeal  is  their  policy.  Prohibition 
of  slavery  is  again  to  be  put  upon  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  I  con 
sidered  the  merits  of  the  question  as  settled  at  the  last  session.  I 
consider  them  as  settled  now.  Revolution  never  goes  backward — 
always  forward.  The  argument  in  and  out  of  Congress,  and 
throughout  the  Union,  on  the  great  movement  made  by  the  Na 
tional  Legislature  on  this  question,  was  then  conclusive,  and,  by 
the  passage  of  that  bill  we  took  a  grand  step  in  that  progress 
which  characterizes  this  age.  There  never  will  be  any  backward 
movement  in  this  matter — at  least  in  my  -opinion.  I  have  no 
apprehensions  on  that  score  ;  and  I  repeat,  that  I  do  not  rise  for 
the  purpose  of  opening,  or  again  canvassing,  the  merits  of  the 
Nebraska-Kansas  bill.  But  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  gave 
utterance  to  some  remarks  to  which  I  deem  some  reply  proper. 
He  seemed  to  think  and  argue  that  the  late  elections  at  the  North 
conclusively  showed  that  the  public  sentiment  there,  by  the  late 
elections,  had  passed  the  sentence  of  public  condemnation  on  the 
bill  referred  to,  and  demand  its  immediate  repeal.  He  spoke  of 
that  as  a  fixed  fact.  The  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASH- 
BURNE,]  who  succeeded  him  in  the  discussion,  indulged  in  the 
same  line  of  argument.  Now,  I  wish  to  state  to  these  gentlemen, 
to  this  committee,  and  the  country,  that  I  draw  no  such  inference 
from  the  late  elections.  It  is  true  that  the  results  were  very 
astonishing  to  some,  though  not  to  me,  and  took  many  men,  in 
And  out  of  power,  by  surprise. 

I  ask  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Indiana  how  he  reaches 
the  conclusion  that  these  elections  set  the  seal  of  the  public  con 
demnation  upon  the  friends  of  the  great  movement  of  the  last 
session  ?  I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  was  no  man  more 
zealous  in  his  opposition  to  the  bill  then  passed,  not  even  excepting 
the  gentleman  from  Indiana  himself,  than  yourself,  and  you  will 
pardon  me,  sir,  the  illustration.  Even  you,  sir,  from  the  city  of 
brotherly  love,  are  no  longer  returned  to  the  seat  which  you  have 
filled  with  so  much  ability,  and  in  which  you  have  voted  with  me 
on  many  questions  of  public  policy — always  excepting  this  partio- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOUKI   COMPKOMISE.  417 

ular  measure.  Now,  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  whether 
that  is  a  proof  that  the  people  of  Philadelphia  agree  with  him  and 
with  you,  Mr.  Chairman  ?  I  might  argue,  following  his  line,  that 
this,  your  defeat,  was  the  seal  of  reprobation  on  your  course. 
But,  sir,  the  truth  is,  your  course  on  that  bill,  I  take  it,  had  but 
little  to  do  in  your  defeat  one  way  or  the  other.  Again,  Mr. 
Chairman,  my  honorable  friend  from  another  district  in  Pennsyl 
vania,  who  sits  to  my  right,  [Mr.  HIESTER,]  with  whom  I  had  a 
conversation  at  the  last  session  just  previous  to  the  passage  of 
the  bill,  and  who  was  quite  as  zealous  in  his  opposition  as  you  or 
the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  has  also  been  defeated  in  the  can 
vass  for  re-election.  I  do  not  recollect  the  majority  against  him. 
I  have  not  attempted  the  Nerculaneum  excavating  process  of 
ascertaining  the  depths  to  which  he  has  been  buried  in  this  popu 
lar  irruption — the  majority  against  him  I  do  not  know,  but  it  was 
decided.  The  gentleman  from  the  first  district  of  Pennsylvania, 
[Mr.  FLORENCE,]  who  voted  and  ardently  supported  the  measure, 
has  been  re-elected.  I  also  see  that  the  gentleman  from  the  Berks 
district,  [Mr.  JONES,]  has  been  again  returned.  Another  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  PACKER,]  and  an  advocate  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  has  been  returned.  In  fine,  I  find  that  some  who  have 
voted  for  it  and  some  who  have  voted  against  it  have  been  returned 
to  Congress.  Why,  sir,  in  Pennsylvania  a  gentleman  ran  for  gover 
nor  who  was  known  to  be  opposed  to  the  bill,  and  a  gentleman  ran 
for  canal  commissioner  on  the  opposite  ticket,  and  was  known  to  be 
in  favor  of  the  measure.  The  opponent  of  the  bill  was  elected  by 
thirty-seven  thousand  majority,  while  its  advocate  was  elected 
canal  commissioner  by,  I  believe,  one  hundred  thousand  majority. 
Now,  what  is  to  be  legitimately  inferred  from  this  state  of  things  ? 
Certainly,  not  that  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  had  put  their  seal 
of  reprobation  on  Nebraska.  I  should  infer  that  the  Nebraska 
question  had  nothing  or  very  little  to  do  with  the  election — it 
was  an  element  only  in  the  canvass.  Now,  when  the  gentleman 
wishes  to  appeal  to  the  results  of  an  election  as  evidence  of  any 
thing  he  must  admit  that  the  question  claimed  to  be  decided  by 
it  ought  to  be  the  sole,  leading,  and  paramount  question  in  the 
canvass.  If  such  be  the  case,  appeal  can  be  made  to  the  result. 
But  when  you  find  a  Nebraska  man  elected  canal  commissioner  of 
Pennsylvania  by  one  hundred  thousand  majority,  and  an  anti- 
Nebraska  man  elected  governor  by  thirty-seven  thous'and  majority, 
it  simply  shows  that  this  question  could  have  had  very  little  to  do 
with  the  results.  How  was  it  in  Massachusetts  ?  There  is  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  that  State,  [Mr.  GOODRICH,]  who  was 
alluded  to  yesterday  in  connection  with  the  gentleman  from 
Indiana,  as  associated  with  those  who  got  up  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  Emigration  Society.  There  is  another,  [Mr.  ELIOT,] 
who  came  here  and  took  the  lead  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the 
fugitive  slave  law ;  and  the  gentleman  who  sits  immediately  in 
my  rear  [Mr.  WALLEY,]  who  was  distinguished  in  his  opposition 
27 


418  SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 

to  the  bill — all  were  zealous  in  their  opposition  to  the  bill,  all 
were  candidates  for  re-election,  and  all  were  left  at  home.  All, 
sir,  fell  before  the  destroying  angel  which  came  in  the  night,  and 
they  knew  not  whence  the  blow  came.  It  certainly  did  not  come 
from  the  quarter  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  alludes  ; 
for  if  the  anti-Nebraskaites  struck  down  such  men  as  those  to 
whom  I  have  referred,  they  did  not  back  their  friends  as  we  do 
ours  down  South. 

Mr.  Chairman,  now  let  me  turn  to  the  State  of  Illinois.  I 
allude  to  her  with  pleasure,  for  I  believe  there  was  not  a  single 
northern  State  where  the  principles  of  the  Nebraska  bill  were  so 
openly  and  widely  promulgated  and  considered,  and  so  fairly 
represented  and  met  as  in  that  State.  The  distinguished  sena 
tor  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  stood  in  the  front  of 
the  battle,  never  giving  ground,  never  yielding  an  inch,  and  the 
distinguished  and  gallant  gentleman  upon  this  floor  [Mr.  RICH 
ARDSON]  who  had  charge  of  it  here,  met  the  people  of  Illinois 
everywhere  on  its  merits.  If  there  is  a  State  north  which  may 
be  appealed  to  as  one  where  there  was  any  thing  like  a  contest  on 
the  question,  it  was  Illinois.  And  what  was  the  result  ?  There 
were  but  three  men  from  that  State  who  voted  for  the  Nebraska 
bill,  and  now  we  have  four  Nebraska  men  from  Illinois.  It  seems 
Nebraska  gained  strength  by  discussion  there.  We  had  but  three 
men  before,  and  now  we  have  got  four. 

Mr.  WASHBURNE,  of  Illinois.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  me  what 
the  popular  vote  of  Illinois  was  upon  the  Nebraska  question  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  only  test  of  the  popular  vote  in  the  entire 
State  of  Illinois  that  I  know  upon  that  question,  was  upon  the 
State  treasurer,  and  the  Nebraska  candidate  carried  it  by  a  large 
majority — three  thousand  majority,  I  have  heard.  In  Congress, 
Nebraska  gained  one  member. 

Mr.  WASHBURNE.  I  must  correct  my  friend  from  Georgia  in 
regard  to  the  fact  of  the  vote  in  Illinois  upon  State  treasurer.  It 
is  true  that  Mr.  Moore,  the  Nebraska  man,  was  elected,  I  have 
seen  it  stated,  by  about  eighteen  hundred  majority.  But  it  should 
be  stated,  in  connection  with  that  fact,  that  the  man  who  ran 
against  him — Mr.  Miller — was  not  known  in  the  southern  part  of 
the  State  as  a  candidate,  and  was  not  voted  for  at  all  in  that  part 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  suppose  so !    [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WASHBURNE.  And  I  will  say  further,  that  if  Mr.  Miller  had 
received  his  party  vote  in  that  part  of  the  State  where  he  was  not 
known  as  a  candidate,  he  would  have  been  elected  by  some  five  or 
six  thousand  majority. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  think  the  people  of  Illinois 
could  have  been  exceedingly  offended  and  outraged. by  this  meas 
ure,  if  they  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  have  their  candidates  in 
opposition  known.  And  yet,  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  wants 
to  have  us  believe  that  if  they  could  only  have  had  their  candi- 


SPEECH   ON   THE    MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  419 

dates  known,  they  would  have  been  elected  by  five  or  six  thousand 
majority. 

Mr.  WASHBURNE.  I  will  state  to  the  gentleman  that  the  candi 
date  regularly  nominated  declined,  and  the  other  candidate  was 
brought  out  only  a  short  time  before  the  election. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  I  can  only  say  that  their  candidate  ran 
before  the  popular  demonstration  had  got  hold  of  him,  [laughter ;] 
and  it  only  shows  that  the  first  candidate  saw  the  handwriting 
upon  the  wall,  and  was  more  prudent  than  the  last  one.  [Renewed 
laughter.] 

Mr.  RICHARDSON.  With  the  permission  of  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  I  will  make  a  single  correction.  My  colleague  states 
that  Mr.  Moore  was  elected  treasurer  of  Illinois,  because  his  oppo 
nent  was  not  known  as  a  candidate  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
State.  Sir,  the  facts  are  against  my  colleague.  It  is  true  that  in 
some  of  the  southern  counties  he  received  but  few  votes  ;  but  it  is 
also  true,  that  in  all  the  counties  he  received  some,  so  that  it  was 
known  that  Mr.  Miller  was  a  candidate  in  all  the  counties  in  the 
State. 

While  I  am  up,  I  want  to  state  the  reason  why  the  first  candi 
date  declined.  He  was  nominated  as  the  republican,  fusion  can 
didate,  and  was  brought  out  by  that  party.  And  I  hesitate  not 
here  to  declare  that  if  he  had  continued  in  the  field  he  would  have 
been  beaten  by  more  than  ten  thousand  votes.  But  the  candidate 
who  was  brought  out  at  last  was  indorsed  by  all  the  leading  whigs 
in  the  State,  as  a  sound  radical  whig.  He  was  run  by  the  whigs 
and  supported  by  the  fusionists,  which  accounts  for  his  receiving 
as  heavy  a  vote  as  he  did. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  the  interruption  of  the  gentleman  on  my 
left,  [Mr.  WASHBURNE,]  after  all,  amounts  to  but  very  little.  He 
says  Moore  was  elected  by  eighteen  hundred  majority.  That  is 
quite  enough  for  my  purpose. 

Mr.  WASHBURNE.  How  much  was  Mr.  Pierce's  majority  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  is  not  material  to  me  what  Mr.  Pierce's  ma 
jority  was.  The  popular  vote  in  Illinois,  at  the  recent  election,  was 
in  favor  of  sustaining  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  That  is 
my  point.  I  do  not  care  whether  the  majority  was  eighteen  hun 
dred,  or  five  thousand,  or  eighteen  thousand.  I  am  willing  to 
take  it  at  eighteen  hundred.  I  heard  it  was  three  thousand. 
The  gentleman  has  heard  that  it  was  eighteen  hundred ;  but  the 
difference  is  immaterial.  It  is  given  up  that  a  majority  was  in 
favor  of  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  So  much  for  the 
popular  condemnation  there. 

Now,  then,  take  the  State  of  New  York — for  I  must  be  brief 
upon  this  point.  There  was  but  one  candidate  for  governor  in 
that  State  who  was  openly  and  avowedly  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of 
the  Nebraska  bill.  I  mean  Mr.  Clark.  New  York  gave  but  few 
votes  upon  this  floor,  for  the  bill.  I  think  it  is  generally  conceded, 
that  if  there  is  any  State  in  the  Union  that  is  particularly  unsound 


420  SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 

on  tliis  question,  as  gentlemen  speak,  it  is  New  York.  Well,  sir, 
New  York,  with  all  its  anti-slavery  organizations ;  with  its  Syra 
cuse  convention,  where  every  thing  was  done  that  could  be  done 
to  rally  the  freemen  of  the  North,  as  it  was  said ;  with  its  emigra 
tion  society ;  with  all  this,  how  many  votes  did  Mr.  Clark  get  ? 
Not  more  than  one  third  of  the  votes  of  the  State.  Clark  got  one 
hundred  and  fifty-odd  thousand  votes ;  Seymour  got  some  three 
hundred  less — one  hundred,  and  fifty-odd  thousand  votes ;  and 
Ullman  and  Bronson,  together,  received  about  the  same  number, 
one  hundred  and  fifty-odd  thousand  more.  •  So  that,  in  the  great 
State  of  New  York,  where  this  question  was  made  pre-eminently  a 
test,  in  the  recent  election,  not  one  third  of  the  votes  of  the  State 
were  given  for  the  anti-Nebraska  candidate.  And  yet  the  late 
election  in  New  York  is  held  up  as  a  popular  demonstration  in 
opposition  to  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  Sir,  no  such  con 
clusion  can  be  drawn ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  in  reference  to 
the  elections  in  Pennsylvania,  in  New  Jersey,  in  Michigan,  in 
Indiana ;  so  far  as  furnishing  any  popular  demonstration  upon 
this  subject,  they  amount  to  nothing.  No  person  can  draw  any 
legitimate  inference  from  them,  in  reference  to  this  question. 
Some  say  it  was  the  Know-Nothings  ;  some  say  it  was  the  temper 
ance  men  ;  and  some  say  it  was  the  anti-Nebraskaites,  that  caused 
the  defeat. 

Sir,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  what  it  was  that  caused  these,  to 
some  people,  so  strange  results.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the 
man  down  in  North  Carolina  was  about  right  when  he  said  it  was 
General  Malcontent  that  caused  it.  Some  were  discontented 
because  of  the  appointments  of  the  President  to  office ;  some  were 
discontented  because  it  was  improper  to  send  such  a  man  as  Mr. 
Soule  to  Madrid ;  some  were  discontented  because  it  was  wrong  to 
send  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Belmont  abroad  ;  some  were  dissatisfied 
at  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Yroom ;  some  at  Mr.  Dix ;  some  at  the 
turning  out  of  Bronson ;  some  at  the  organization  of  the  cabinet — 
some  at  one  thing  and  some  at  another.  Some  said  one  thing 
and  some  another.  There  was  general  discontent  and  dissatis 
faction — whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully  it  is  not  my  purpose 
now  to  discuss.  But  the  administration  had  pursued  such  a, 
course  as  to  make  a  large  party  of  malcontents — men  bent  upon 
breaking  up  things — this  class,  the  North  Carolina  man  calls  the 
"  Hamshackles  ;"  the  designation  is  a  good  one.  Yes,  sir,  it  was 
General  Malcontent  and  the  great  party  of  the  "  Ramshackles" 
that  triumphed  at  the  North  at  the  late  elections,  and  not  the  anti- 
Nebraskaites. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  referred  to  the  South.  He  said 
lie  wanted  the  members  from  the  North  to  get  on  the  same  high 
stand  that  the  representatives  of  the  South  occupied.  I  suppose 
he  intended  what  he  said  in  this  connection  as  a  compliment  to 
the  South,  inasmuch  as  he  wanted  his  people  to  occupy  the  same 
position ;  but,  if  I  comprehend  what  he  said,  I  do  not  receive  it  as  a 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  421 

compliment.  He  said  that  southern  members  upon  this  floor  first 
ascertained  the  wishes,  and  then  voted  on  all  questions  as  their 
constituents  wished — that  they  would  stand  by  the  interests  of 
their  constituents  and  represent  their  wishes.  Sir,  I  say  to  the 
gentleman,  that  I  think  he  is  just  as  much  mistaken  in  this  as  he 
was  in  reference  to  the  popular  elections  of  the  North.  I  can 
speak,  however,  only  for  myself.  It  is  not  true  that,  in  my 
course  as  a  member  of  this  House,  I  look  solely  to  what  my  con 
stituents  wish.  The  first  question  that  addresses  itself  to  my 
mind  is,  whether  any  measure  presented  here  is  right  ?  I  send  no 
letters  home  to  know  what  they  think  there  about  it ;  I  never  have 
and  never  shall.  I  consult  my  own  judgment  and  act  accordingly. 
If  I  think  a  measure  is  right,  that  it  is  proper,  that  it  is  just,  I 
vote  for  it ;  and  if  I  do  not,  I  vote  against  it.  Upon  the  merits  of 
every  question  I  am  responsible  to  my  constituents ;  and  when  I 
go  home  to  them,  an  intelligent  and  patriotic  people,  if  they  do 
not  approve  my  conduct,  they  can  send  another  in  my  place. 
Sir,  I  believe  that  this  is  the  general  position  of  southern  men. 

But  the  gentleman  says  that  when  southern  men's  measures  are 
vetoed,  they  raise  their  voices  in  tones  of  thunder  until  they  carry 
them.  Sir,  I  do  not  believe  there  ever  was  a  southern  measure 
vetoed.  I  do  not  recollect  one.  The  South  has  never  asked  any 
thing  from  your  government  that  called  for  a  veto.  There  is  the 
difference  between  us.  The  South  asks  but  few  favors  from  you. 
It  is  a  class  of  gentlemen  from  the  North  Who  ask  aid  from  the 
government.  Why,  we  never  come  here  in  that  attitude.  Let  me 
ask  the  gentleman  when  any  measure  from  the  South  was  ever 
vetoed  ?  when  the  South  ever  asked  any  thing  that  required  the 
exercise  of  the  veto  power  ? 

But  the  gentleman  said  that  he  admired  the  South,  because 
"knowing  their  rights,  they  dared  maintain  them."  That  I  take 
as  a  compliment.  And  now,  what  is  his  position?  Why,  the 
South  "knowing  their  rights,  and  daring  to  maintain  them,"  he 
would  have  the  North  to  rise  up  and  prevent  her  from  getting  her 
known  and  acknowledged  rights !  If  we  know  our  rights,  and 
they  are  our  rights,  and  we  dare  maintain  them,  why  ought  not 
the  North,  why  ought  not  the  gentleman — I  will  not  say  the 
North — to  grant  us  our  rights?  Have  we  ever  asked  any  thing 
but  what  was  right  ?  Now,  I  say,  with  all  due  respect  to  the  gen 
tleman,  that  the  true  position  of  the  South  is  this:  we  "ask 
nothing  but  what  is  right,  and  we  submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong." 
That  is  the  position  that  the  South  has  always  occupied,  as  I  re 
member  her  history. 

Now,  sir,  upon  the  subject  of  internal  improvements  which  the 
gentleman  alluded  to,  has  the  South  ever  asked  legislative  aid  in 
that  particular  ?  I  do  not  speak  now,  sectionally,  or  against  the 
North ;  but  look  at  the  whole  history  of  our  government.  Who  is 
it  that  is  constantly  appealing  here  for  legislative  aid  and  legisla 
tive  patronage  ?  Who  ask  for  fishing  bounties  ?  Who  ask  for 


4-22  SPEECH    OX    THE    MISSOURI    COMPROMISE. 

protection  to  navigation  ?  Why,  the  people  of  the  South,  if  they 
were  permitted  to  use  or  employ  foreign  vessels  in  their  coast 
trade,  would  be  greatly  benefitted  thereby.  But  American  ship 
ping  must  be  protected,  and  who  is  it  that  asks  that  protection, 
not  only  on  shipping,  but  almost  every  thing  else  ?  Who  is  it 
that  wants  a  duty  upon  coal?  Who  upon  iron?  Who  upon 
woollen  goods  ?  Who  upon  shoes,  hats,  leather,  cotton  fabrics — • 
every  thing?  Why,  it  is  the  industrial  interests  of  the  North. 
We  of  the  South,  it  is  true,  sometimes  grumble  and  complain  :  but 
the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the  South  have  yielded  to  what 
they  consider  in  some  instances  very  heavy  exactions,  for  the  sup 
port  of  government.  But  when  did  we  ever  come  up  and  ask  any 
aid  from  the  government  of  the  United  States  ?  The  constant 
prayer  of  the  South  to  you  has  been  to  stay  your  hands.  All  that 
we  ask  of  you  is,  keep  your  hands  out  of  our  pockets.  That  is  all 
that  the  South  ask,  and  we  do  not  get  even  that.  It  is  true,  sir, 
that  in  my  own  State  we  have  asked  some  little  favors,  but  very  few. 
Some  years  ago  we  asked  that  you  should  take  the  obstructions 
out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Savannah  river — not  obstructions  that 
nature  put  there,  but  that  were  put  there  during  the  revolutionary 
war,  to  keep  out  a  foreign  fleet — put  there,  not  by  the  citizens  of 
the  State,  but  by  public  authority.  It  seems  to  us  nothing  but 
right  and  just  that  the  general  government  should  remove  those 
obstructions  ;  but  we  have  asked  in  vain  for  that.  The  gentleman 
says  that  the  representatives  of  the  North  come  here  and  pass 
river  and  harbor  bills,  which  are  vetoed,  and  the  wishes  of  their 
constituents  are  thereby  defeated.  Well,  sir,  we  have  some  rivers 
in  the  South  quite  as  navigable  as  those  in  Indiana ;  but  when  did 
Georgia,  or  South  Carolina,  or  Virginia,  or  the  South  generally, 
come  and  ask  Congress  to  clear  out  those  rivers  ? 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  going  into  a  discussion  of  this 
question  of  internal  improvements,  or  the  constitutional  power.  I 
am  going  to  address  a  plain,  common-sense  argument  in  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  who  said  that  when  the  South  asked 
any  thing  she  got  it,  or  that  when  a  southern  measure  was  vetoed, 
the  South  thundered  and  thundered  upon  this  floor,  until  she  got 
what  she  wanted,  while  northern  measures  were  defeated  by  vetoes. 
I  repeat,  that  a  southern  measure  has  never  been  vetoed.  But 
how  does  the'  "gentleman  stand  when  he  comes  here  and  asks  us, 
out  of  the  public  treasury,  to  clean  out  the  rivers  in  his  State  ?  I 
will  state  here,  in  passing,  that  I  believe  Congress  has  the  consti 
tutional  power  to  clean  out  harbors,  and  construct  roads  when  it 
is  necessary  either  for  the  collection  of  the  public  revenue,  or  for 
military  purposes.  I  did  what  I  could  last  Congress  to  get  the  im 
provement  of  Boston  harbor,  as  well  as  of  various  other  harbors 
that  I  believed  to  be  necessary  for  the  collection  of  the  revenue. 
I  was  also  in  favor  of  removing  the  obstructions  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Mississippi  river.  This  is  sufficient  to  show  my  general 
position  on  this  subject.  Now,  a  few  words  on  the  material 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  423 

matter  alluded  to  by  the  gentleman,  the  improvement  of  western 
rivers. 

In  the  State  of  Georgia,  we  have  never  asked  for  any  harbor 
improvements  except  for  the  removal  of  those  obstructions  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Savannah  river,  and  we  never  got  that,  as  I  have 
stated.  We  have  never  asked  the  general  government  to  clean  out 
our  rivers.  But  we  have  a  country  of  hill  and  valley,  and  we  have 
to  get  to  market  with  out  products — for  we  grow  some  things  in 
Georgia  for  market,  notwithstanding  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Indiana,  we  are  a  heaven-accursed,  slavery-doomed 
land — we  grow  some  products  in  Georgia,  I  say,  for  market,  and 
how  do  we  get  them  to  market  ?  Do  we  come  here  and  ask  aid  of 
the  general  government  ?  No,  sir.  Why,  in  my  State,  we  have 
now  upward  of  a  thousand  miles  of  railroad  in  full  operation. 
How  did  we  obtain  it  ?  We  took  our  surplus  capital,  and  with  it 
we  bought  human  labor,  human  energy,  bone  and  sinew — we 
bought  the  strong  arms  of  our  own  citizens,  as  well  as  of  foreign 
ers,  to  come  and  dig  down  the  hills  and  fill  up  the  valleys,  and 
lay  down  the  superstructure  of  our  railroads — we  bought  the  iron, 
when  we  could  get  it,  in  this  country,  and  we  went  abroad  for  it 
when  we  could  not  get  it  here,  and  notwithstanding  all  that,  when 
we  brought  our  iron  into  the  country,  we  had  to  pay  duty  upon  it 
to  the  general  government.  Twenty  millions  of  dollars  have  been 
spent  in  Georgia  in  constructing  highways  to  our  markets.  That 
is  the  way  we  got  our  thousand  miles  of  railroad.  So  far  from 
coming  here  and  receiving  assistance  from  the  government,  we 
have  actually  had  to  pay  a  tax  for  the  privilege  of  bringing  our 
iron  into  the  country.  Georgia  has  paid  not  less  than  a  million 
and  a  half  of  dollars  as  a  duty  on  iron,  into  the  treasury  for  the 
privilege  of  building  her  own  works  of  internal  improvement. 
Now,  I  would  ask  any  candid  man — I  would  ask  the  gentleman 
himself — if  it  is  just,  not  only  to  tax  Georgia  for  the  privilege  of 
constructing'  her  highways,  but  then  to  take  those  very  taxes  that 
we  have  paid  to  open  rivers  in  Indiana  ?  It  does  not  strike  me 
that  that  is  very  just.  I  am  speaking  now  to  men  of  commoL 
sense.  I  am  not  talking  of  what  you  can  constitutionally  do.  Is  it 
not  an  unjust  abuse  of  power  to  do  it,  even  if  you  have  the  power  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  CAMPBELL]  told  us,  the  other 
day,  what  the  "great  West "  would  do.  I  have  a  great  respect 
for  the  great  West,  and  I  will  do  every  thing  which  I  think  right, 
and  proper,  and  just,  to  develop  the  resources  of  that  section  of 
the  country.  I  am  willing,  as  I  have  said,  to  open  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi,  because  the  State  of  Louisiana  cannot  do  it,  and 
to  take  the  snags  out  of  that  great  river.  But  when  I  am  appealed 
to  to  clear  out  every  little  river,  and  open  up  every  little  harbor, 
and  make  works  of  improvement  throughout  the  country,  or  in 
any  section  of  it — I  do  not  care  which  or  what — barely  because 
the  people  of  such  section  want  it,  and  send  men  here  to  ask  and 
vote  for  it,  I  say  it  is  unjust  to  dispose  of  the  public  money  in  any 


424  SPEECH   ON  THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 

such  way,  and  I  shall  not  do  it.  I  ask  every  man  now,  who  looks 
on  these  questions  as  he  should,  if  it  is  not  manifestly  unjust  ? 

Now,  the  gentleman  [Mr.  MACE]  says,  in  speaking  of  the  Mis 
souri  compromise,  that,  by  the  Missouri  compromise,  slavery  had 
been  prohibited  north  of  36°  30',  and  that  slavery  was  to  exist 
south  of  36°  30'.  I  wish  to  correct  the  gentleman.  The  South 
has  never  asked  that  slavery  should  be  extended  by  this  govern 
ment  anywhere,  south  or  north.  The  Missouri  compromise  of 
1820  never  established  such  a  principle — never.  The  act  of  1820, 
by  which  Missouri  was  to  have  come  into  the  Union,  but  never 
did,  prohibited  the  existence  of  slavery  north  of  36°  30 ' ;  but  it 
said  nothing  at  all  on  the  subject  south  of  that  line.  The  South 
never  asked  such  a  guarantee.  The  guarantee  which  the  South 
has  asked,  and  which  has  been  established  in  the  passage  of  the 
Nebraska  bill,  and  which  the  South  will  never  yield,  was  simply 
that  the  people  on  every  foot  of  American  soil,  north  or  south, 
east  or  west,  shall,  when  they  come  to  form  their  State  constitu 
tion,  do  as  they  please  upon  the  question  of  African  slavery,  and 
shall  come  into  the  Union  either  with  or  without  it,  as  they  shall 
then  determine  for  themselves.  The  South  does  not  ask  you  that 
a  slave  State  shall  be  admitted  from  Texas,  unless  the  people 
there  so  determine.  What  we  insisted  on  in  the  Texas  annexa 
tion  resolutions  was,  that  the  people  there  might  be  permitted  to 
settle  this  matter  for  themselves.  And  this  is  all  the  guarantee 
we  secured;  all  that  we  then  asked ;  all  that  we  asked  in  1850 ;  all 
that  we  asked  in  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  what  we  will  ever  main 
tain  is,  that  the  people  in  every  organized  community,  in  every 
territory,  when  they  come  to  form  their  own  institutions,  shall 
do  as  they  please  in  that  respect,  and  come  into  the  Union  either 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  wish.  I  say,  sir,  that  is  the 
southern  doctrine ;  and  I  say,  also,  that  it  is  American  doctrine. 
That  is  what  I  mean  by  national  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  [Mr.  MACE]  said  yesterday  he  w&s  a  national 
man.  National !  Why,  sir,  he  is  against  his  own  section.  Not 
only  is  he  against  the  South,  but  he  is  against  his  own  people. 
According  to  his  doctrine  his  own  people  cannot  be  trusted  in 
the  territories.  He  must  be  their  guardian — a  self-constituted 
protector.  He  says  that  members  of  Congress  set  up  to  be 
masters  of  their  constituents,  that  they  did  not  know  what  their 
constituents  wanted,  and  that  they  came  here  last  session  to  be 
their  masters  by  voting  for  Nebraska  against  their  wishes.  No, 
sir,  it  is  the  gentleman  himself  who  wants  to  be  master.  Of  whom  ? 
Of  his  own  fellow-citizens  !  He  and  the  men  who  embrace  his  doc 
trine  virtually  say  that  when  the  people  go  from  the  North  or 
South  into  a  territory  they  become  unfit  to  govern  themselves. 
This  is  what  the  gentleman  said  about  masters  : 

"  The  doctrine  sought  to  be  established  now  is  this,  that  we  come  up 
here  as  the  masters  of  the  people,  that  we  come  here  not  bound  to  consult 
with  them  at  all,  and  that  we  may  pass  laws  which  we  know  they  will 


SPEECH  ON  THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  425 

disapprove  of,  and  then  call  upon  them,  as  loyal  subjects,  to  acquiesce  in 
our  acts  and  cease  their  grumbling." 

The  gentleman  says  that  that  is  what  we  do.  I  say  to  the 
gentleman,  "thouart  the  man."  That  is  exactly  what  you  do. 
Why  does  he  offer  his  bill  to  abolish  slavery  in  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  ?  because  he  says  the  people  there  will  have  it  if  we  do 
not.  Why  does  he  then  propose  to  pass  a  law  for  them  which  he 
knows  they  will  disapprove  of,  and  then  call  on  them  as  "  loyal 
subjects  to  acquiesce  in  our  acts,  and  cease  their  grumbling?" 
He  says  that  when  men  go  from  Massaschusetts,  or  from  Indiana, 
or  from  Illinois,  or  from  Ohio,  or  from  Georgia,  and  get  over  into 
the  territories,  they  shall  not  govern  themselves  as  they  please, 
but  as  we  please.  We,  the  Nebraska  men,  on  the  contrary,  treat 
them  as  freemen,  as  our  equals,  and  let  them  do  as  they  please. 
Who,  then,  are  the  masters,  or  would-be  masters  ?  I  say,  sir,  it  is  that 
class  of  men  who  set  themselves  up  as  the  only  safe  guardians, 
protectors,  and  law-makers  for  men  who  have  no  choice  in  their 
election,  and  to  whom  they  are  in  no  way  responsible.  Oh,  but 
the  gentleman  says,  pass  this  bill,  say,  b}7  law,  that  slavery  never 
shall  go  into  these  territories,  and  then  the  people  can  do  just  as 
they  please,  just  as  they  did  in  Iowa,  and  can  form  State  consti 
tutions  against  slavery,  as  Iowa  did,  and  come  into  the  Union  as 
that  State  did.  Why,  sir,  the  gentleman's  idea  of  liberty  on  the 
part  of  the  people  to  do  as  they  please  is  very  much  like  a  story 
that  I  heard  told  by  the  late  Justice  McKinley,  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  The  incident  occurred  in  Lexington,  Kentucky,  I  be 
lieve.  A  member  of  Congress  from  that  State  had  given  very 
much  dissatisfaction  to  his  constituents  by  some  vote  ;  and  they 
went  through  the  form  of  burning  him  in  effigy.  Accordingly 
they  got  up  a  torch-light  procession  to  inarch  to  his  house,  and 
as  they  were  going  along  with  a  great  deal  of  "  noise  and  some 
confusion,"  some  person  on  the  side-walk,  not  partaking  of  the 
feelings  of  the  crowd,  but  believing  it  to  be  an  outrage  rather, 
whispered  this  opinion  to  a  man  next  to  him.  One  of  the  rowdies 
in  the  procession,  who  overheard  the  remark,  stepped  up  and 
said  to  him,  "  What  is  that  you  say  ?  You  think  that  this  is  a 
great  outrage,  do  you ?"  "Yes,  I  do,"  was  the  answer.  "  Then, 
sir,"  replied  his  questioner,  "  I  want  to  let  you  know  that  this  is 
a  free  country,  and  that  we  will  do  as  we  d — d  please,  and  you 
shan't  say  nothing !"  [Laughter.]  That  is  the  way  the  gentleman 
[Mr.  MACE]  would  give  freedom  to  the  territories.  Oh,  yes,  he 
will  make  it  a  free  territory.  He  will  have  his  way,  and  the  peo 
ple  there  "shan't  say  nothing."  He  would  give  them  precisely 
that  sort  of  freedom  which  closes  the  mouths  of  freemen.  That 
sort  of  liberty  he  would  have  which  says  to  freemen,  "  You  shall 
do  as  I  please — it  is  a  free  country,  it  is  true  ;  but  I  will  have  my 
way,  and  you  shall  not  say  a  word.  You  shall  not  elect  Whit- 
tield,  or  any  man  who  would  favor  the  introduction  of  slavery." 
["Laughter.] 


4:26  SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOUEI   COMPROMISE. 

Now,  sir,  the  gentleman  [Mr.  MACE]  yesterday  notified  the 
country,  and  notified  the  House  that  Nebraska  never  should 
come  in  as  a  slave  State.  This  is  plain  and  direct  language.  It 
presents  the  issue  fairly.  It  is  bringing  up  that  question  which 
has  been  thrice  settled  by  this  country.  And,  without  pretend 
ing  to  speak  prophetically,  I  will  venture  the  opinion,  that  if 
Nebraska  comes  here  with  a  slavery  constitution,  she  will  be  ad 
mitted  ;  and  the  great  body  of  these  gentlemen  who  occupy  the 
position  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  will  be  at  that  time 
buried  so  deep  under  popular  condemnation,  that  their  voices 
against  it  will  never  reach  the  Capitol.  A  great  national  princi 
ple  is  involved  in  this  question  which  the  people  of  this  country 
are  not  going  to  ignore.  National  men  will  be  sent  from  the 
North  as  well  as  from  the  South.  Men  will  be  sent  to  Congress 
who  stand  upon  principles,  and  will  not  "back  and  fill,"  and 
be  on  one  principle  for  one  week,  one  month,  and  one  moon,  and 
upon  another  principle  another  week,  and  month,  and  moon. 
The  gentleman's  principles  do  not  set  by  him  a  twelvemonth. 
And  if  he  changes  in  the  future  as  rapidly  and  radically  as  he 
has  in  the  past,  even  he,  if  here,  may  yet  vote  for  her  admission 
as  a  slave  State. 

In  some  things  I  was  surprised  at  the  gentleman's  speech 
yesterday ;  for  I  recollected  very  well  the  remarks  he  made  with 
reference  to  this  Nebraska  bill  before  it  passed,  and  the  amend 
ment  which  he  offered.  I  beg  to  call  his  attention,  and  the 
attention  of  the  House,  to  the  report  of  his  remarks — made  on  the 
22d  of  May,  the  Saturday  before  it  passed : 

"  Mr.  MACE  moved  to  insert  in  the  first  section  '  and  the  territorial 
legislature  shall  have  the  power  to  admit  or  exclude  slavery  at  any  time 
by  law.'  He  said  he  offered  the  amendment  in  good  faith,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  testing  the  sincerity  of  members  from  the  western  States,  and 
more  especially  the  sincerity  of  those  of  the  delegation  from  Indiana,  who 
were  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

"  Mr.  ENGLISH.  If  the  amendment  be  adopted,  will  my  colleague  give 
the  bill  his  support  ? 

"  Mr.  MACE.     I  will." 

Mr.  MACE.  What  reasons  did  I  give  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  only  reasons  he  gave  are  those  I  have  read. 
He  said  that  he  offered  the  amendment  in  good  faith,  for  the 
purpose  of  testing  the  sincerity  of  members,  and  more  especially 
the  sincerity  of  the  members  of  the  delegation  from  Indiana  whs 
voted  in  favor  of  the  bill ;  and  he  said  that  if  it  was  adopted — that 
is,  if  the  legislature  should  have  the  power  to  settle  the  question 
at  any  time,  he  would  vote  for  the  bill.  Now,  he  wants  to  deprive 
the  legislature,  or  the  people  in  convention,  from  ever  being 
empowered  to  settle  it,  as  they  want  to  do,  at  all.  Perhaps  when 
the  people  do  settle,  as  they  now  have  the  power  to  do  it,  he 
may  yet  sanction  it,  notwithstanding  they  may  adopt  a  slavery 
constitution. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  427 

Mr.  MACE.  Did  the  gentleman  vote  for  my  amendment  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  did  not,  and  for  the  reason  given,  that  by  the 
bill  we  had  given  the  people  all  the  power  that  we  could  under 
the  constitution.  We  could  not  grant  more,  and  they  could  not 
exercise  more  if  we  had  granted  it.  We  had  done  all  we  could  on 
our  part,  and  we  could  not  give  them  more.  The  government  of 
the  territories,  in  my  opinion,  devolved  upon  Congress,  in  the 
first  instance.  It  was  our  duty  to  govern  them,  or  provide 
governments  for  them.  I  stated  then  to  the  country,  and  now 
state,  that  I  believe  it  was  right  and  just  for  us  to  turn  over  our 
powers  to  the  people,  all  the  powers  at  least  that  they  can  exer 
cise  under  tne  constitution.  So  far  as  my  vote  was  concerned,  I 
gave  the  people  all  the  power  that  they  could  exercise  under  the 
constitution.  We  could  not  give  them  more,  and  why  should  the 
gentleman  have  asked  to  give  them,  more? 

The  gentleman  from  Indiana  said  that  he  would  vote  in  good 
faith  to  give  the  people  of  these  territories  power  to  admit 
slavery ;  but  now  he  comes  forward  and  wants  to  deprive  them 
of  the  power  of  passing  any  law  by  which  slavery  may  be  tolerated. 
I  did  not  know  then  whether  Kansas  would  be  a  slave  State  or 
not.  I  do  not  know  now  whether  it  will  be  or  not,  but  this  does 
not  make  the  slightest  difference  in  my  vote.  Men  may  indulge 
in  whatever  speculations  they  please.  If  Kansas  should  come 
here  with  a  constitution  excluding  slavery,  and  ask  admission 
into  the  Union  as  a  State,  while  I  am  a  member  upon  this  floor, 
I  should  vote  for  her  admission.  At  least  that  feature  in  her 
constitution  will  not  cause  me  to  vote  against  her  admission.  I 
voted  for  the  admission  of  Iowa,  and  I  have  voted  for  the  admis 
sion  of  every  northern  State,  since  I  have  occupied  a  seat  upon 
this  floor,  when  I  have  been  in  my  place.  I  was  not  here  when 
California  was  admitted,  but  I  defended  her  admission. 

I  want  gentlemen  from  the  North,  and  the  gentleman  from  Indi 
ana,  to  understand  the  South,  or  at  least  the  position  of  some  of  her 
representatives.  We  stand  upon  principle.  We  do  not  advocate 
a  measure  to-day  because  it  votes  money  into  the  pockets  of  our 
constituents,  or  because  it  is  favored  by  them  or  advances  their 
interests,  and  then  to-morrow  array  ourselves  in  opposition  to  it, 
because  we  think  a  different  result  follows  from  its  operation,  but 
we  stand,  particularly  on  this  question,  upon  the  fixed  and  im 
mutable  principles  upon  which  the  constitution  itself  rests.  In 
the  beginning,  in  the  middle  of  our  history,  and  up  to  this  time, 
there  we  have  always  stood.  The  South,  in  1820,  maintained 
the  principle  that  a  State  has  the  right  to  come  into  the  Union 
with  such  institutions,  republican  in  their  character,  as  she  might 
adopt.  Missouri  was  denied  admission,  and  the  South  did 
reluctantly  consent  that  slavery  should  be  excluded  north  of  36° 
30',  provided  Missouri  should  come  in  as  she  pleased.  But 
Missouri  was  again  denied  admission — she  did  not  come  in  under 
this  act  of  1 820.  I  will  not,  however,  go  over  this  ground  again 


428  SPEECH   ON  THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 

now.  The  North  would  not  adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  act 
of  1820.  When  the  strife  of  1850  became  intolerable,  when  the 
ship  of  State  seemed  about  to  go  down,  and  when  southern  men 
were  still  standing  on  deck  with  flag-staff  in  their  hands  appealing 
to  northern  patriots  to  come  to  the  rescue,  and  stand  upon  the 
old  platform,  occupied  by  them  when  the  Missouri  question  arose 
— that  is,  the  State-rights  doctrine  of  letting  each  State  settle  this 
matter  for  itself — whether  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the 
North  or  South — it  was  then  that  this  principle,  incorporated  in 
the  Nebraska  bill,  was  first  established.  This  principle  now  fol 
lows  the  American  flag  wherever  it  floats,  whether  in  California, 
Utah,  New  Mexico,  or  southern  Texas.  The  same  stars  and 
stripes,  with  the  same  principles  inscribed  upon  their  broad  folds, 
now  wave  far  up  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska !  Let  them  go,  knit 
together,  one  and  inseparable,  over  every  foot  of  American  soil. 
This,  sir,  is  my  wish,  and  this,  sir,  I  think,  will  be  the  result ;  I 
therefore  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASHBURNE,] 
that  he  will  not  live  to  see  the  day,  in  my  opinion,  when  this 
great  movement,  this  revolution  in  American  politics,  will  ever 
roll  backward.  Its  course  will  rather  be  onward.  There  are 
some  other  topics  to  which  I  wish  to  allude. 

Why  is  it  that  gentlemen  object  so  much  to  the  introduction 
of  slavery  into  Kansas,  if  the  people  of  that  territory  desire  it  to 
go  there  ?  When  I  made  a  speech  at  the  last  session  upon  this 
subject,  I  stated  that  I  would  vote  for  the  principle  of  allowing 
the  people  of  any  section  of  the  country  to  come  into  the  Union 
and  form  institutions  as  they  please.  This  I  said  when  I  knew 
there  might  be  twice  as  many  people  there  from  the  North  as 
from  the  South,  and  the  chances  of  emigration  I  knew  would 
greatly  preponderate  in  favor  of  the  North.  I  am  willing,  now, 
to  abide  by  that  principle.  I  have  no  desire  to  deprive  the  peo 
ple  of  any  State  or  territory  in  our  common  country  of  the  right 
of  adopting  such  institutions  for  their  government,  when  they 
become  States,  as  they  please.  It  is  anti-American,  and  entirely 
at  war  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  about  which  we  hear  so  much. 
I  ask  why  the  people  of  any  section  of  the  country  should  be 
prevented  from  adopting  the  institutions  of  the  South,  if  they 
wish  them  ?  Socially,  morally,  and  politically,  or  in  any  aspect 
of  the  question,  is  there  any  reason  for  depriving  them  of  such 
right  ?  Is  it  for  the  sake  of  humanity  that  gentlemen  are  not 
willing  for  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assign  the  African  the  same 
condition  there  that  he  occupies  in  the  South,  if  they  think  it 
best  to  do  so  ?  Are  gentlemen  willing  to  degrade  their  own  race 
by  not  permitting  them  to  vote  upon  matters  relating  to  their 
own  government,  while  they  are  endeavoring  to  elevate  the  negro 
to  the  standard  of  the  white  man  ?  You  may  degrade  the  white 
man,  but  you  cannot  raise  the  negro  to  the  level  you  purpose. 
It  is  impossible.  You  have  to  reverse  a  law  of  nature  first.  Men 
may  indulge  in  philanthropic  speculations  as  much  as  they  please, 


SPEECH   ON  THE   MISSOURI   COMPEOMISE.  429 

but  here  is  the  great  immutable  law  of  nature,  and  they  cannot 
avoid  it.  *  I  am  not  here  to  argue  whether  decrees  of  the  Most 
High  are  right,  wise,  and  just.  There  is  a  difference,  a  vast 
difference,  established  by  the  Creator  between  the  different  races 
of  men.  For  "myself,  I  believe  that  he  who  made  us  all  is  just, 
and  that  he  made  the  white  man  as  he  made  him,  and  that  he 
made  the  negro  as  he  made  him — for  wise  and  just  purposes. 
Some  vessels  are  made  for  honor  and  some  for  dishonor ;  one 
star  differeth  from  another  star  in  magnitude  as  well  as  in 
brilliancy.  I  believe,  too,  that  the  system  of  government,  as 
adopted  by  the  South,  defining  the  status  or  relation  of  these  two 
races,  is  the  best  for  both  of  them ;  and  I  am  prepared  to  argue 
that  question  with  the  gentleman,  here  or  anywhere.  Take  the 
negroes  in  Indiana,  take  them  in  the  North  generally,  and  com 
pare  their  condition  with  those  of  the  South.  Take  them  in 
Africa ;  take  them  anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  habitable  globe ; 
and  then  take  them  in  the  southern  States,  and  the  negro  popula 
tion  of  the  South  are  better  off,  better  fed,  better  clothed,  better 
provided  for,  enjoy  more  happiness,  and  a  higher  civilization, 
than  the  same  race  has  ever  enjoyed  anywhere  else  on  the  face 
of  the  world.  Could  Howard  the  philanthropist,  who  has  left  an 
undying  fame  for  his  deeds  of  humanity,  have  taken  the  same 
number  of  Africans  from  their  native  country  and  raised  them 
from  their  barbarous  condition  to  that  of  the  slaves  of  the  South, 
he  would  have  added  much  to  that  stature  of  immortality  which, 
in  his  day,  he  erected  to  himself.  It  would  have  greatly  added 
to  that  reputation,  which  now  sanctifies  his  memory  in  the  hearts 
and  affections  of  mankind. 

Look  at  the  three  millions  of  Africans  as  you  find  them  in  the 
South ;  and  where  is  the  man  so  cold-hearted,  and  cold-blooded, 
as  would  wish  to  put  them  in  the  condition  that  their  forefathers 
were,  or  their  kindred  now  are  in  Africa  ?  What  has  done  so 
much  for  these  people  but  that  which  is  so  much  denounced  by 
inconsiderate  fanatics  ;  men  and  women,  too,  who  find  fault  with 
what  they  know  nothing  about  ? 

Again :  take  our  negroes,  and  compare  their  condition  with  that 
of  the  free  negroes  of  the  North.  I  have  the  result  of  the  census 
returns  before  me,  and  from  that  it  appears  that  the  increase  of 
the  free  people  of  color  in  the  United  States,  from  1840  to  1850, 
was  only  ten  and  ninety-five  hundredths  per  centum.  This  shows 
that  their  condition  cannot  be  very  good,  or  desirable ;  and  to 
this  increase  is  to  be  added,  too,  the  fugitive  slaves,  and  those 
who  have  been  emancipated.  With  all  these  sources  of  increase, 
that  increase  has  only  been  ten  and  ninety-five  hundredths  per 
centum. 

Now,  how  is  it  with  the  slaves — the  down-trodden,  the  abused, 
the  half-starved  slaves  ?  Their  increase,  during  the  same  period, 
was  twenty-eight  and  fifty-eight  hundredths.  Is  there  any  such 
result  to  be  presented  at  the  North,  where  they  are  free  and  left 


430  SPEECH   ON   THE   MISSOUKI   COMPROMISE. 

to  themselves  ?     How  can  your  missionaries  in  philanthropy  and 
crusaders  in  benevolence  account  for  this  ? 

But  some  people  say  that  slavery  is  a  curse  to  the  white  man. 
They  abandon  the  idea  that  it  is  a  curse  to  the  negro.  They  say 
it  weakens,  impoverishes,  and  demoralizes  "a  State.  Let  us  see. 
They  say  there  can  be  no  high  social,  moral,  or  material  develop 
ment  under  the  institution  of  slavery.  I  have  before  me  some 
statistics  on  this  point — statistics  relating  to  material  develop 
ment.  But,  before  alluding  to  them,  I  will  say  upon  the  subject 
of  morals,  that  I  saw  a  table  of  crimes  made  out  in  the  census 
office  for  1850.  From  those  statistics  it  appeared — I  speak  from 
memory ;  I  have  not  the  paper  before  me — that  the  number  of 
convictions  for  crimes  of  every  grade,  in  Massachusetts,  the  land 
of  "  steady  habits,"  and  where  we  hear  so  much  of  the  immoral 
effects  of  slavery,  with  a  population  under  one  million,  was  seve 
ral  thousand ;  while  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  with  a  population 
not  so  great,  the  similar  convictions  are  less  than  one  hundred. 
I  say,  then,  upon  the  score  of  crime,  upon  the  score  of  morals,  I 
am  ready  to  compare  my  State  with  that  of  Massachusetts,  or 
any  one  of  the  free  States.  Where,  then,  is  the  moral  curse  which 
arises  from  slavery  ? 

A  few  facts  in  reference  to  physical  development.  I  had  occa 
sion,  some  time  since,  for  another  purpose  than  the  present,  to 
look  a  little  into  the  statistics  of  Georgia,  compared  with  those 
of  other  States.  I  selected  the  State  of  Ohio,  because  it  was  one 
of  the  most  prosperous  of  the  North — often  styled,  and,  perhaps, 
justly  too,  the  giant  of  the  West.  According  to  the  census 
returns  in  1850,  Ohio  had  of  improved  lands  9,851,493  acres — 
Georgia  had  only  6,318,479  acres,  the  cash  value  of  the  Georgia 
land  so  improved  and  under  culture  was  $95,753,445,  while  the 
cash  value  of  the  Ohio  lands  was  returned  at  $358,758,603 — Ohio 
had  nearly  one-third  more  land  in  a  state  of  improvement  than 
Georgia  had,  and  returned  at  more  than  three  times  the  cash 
value  of  the  Georgia  lands.  The  whole  population  of  Ohio  was 
1,908,480,  the  whole  population  of  Georgia,  white  and  black,  was 
905,999.  The  population  of  Ohio,  therefore,  was  more  than  double 
that  of  Georgia.  Here  we  see  her  free  labor  more  than  double  in 
number,  working  one  third  more  land,  worth,  by  valuation,  more 
than  three  times  that  of  Georgia.  From  these  elements  it  might 
not  be  surprising  to  see  her  agricultural  products  greatly  exceed 
ing  those  of  Georgia,  without  resorting  to  the  "  curse  of  slavery" 
to  account  for  it.  But  how  stand  the  facts  ?  Ohio  produced  the 
following  articles : 
Wheat..  14,487,351  bush,  at  80  cents  $11,589,880 


Buckwheat 638,050 

Indian  corn 59,078,695 

Rye 425,918 

Barley 354,358 

Oats 13,472,742 


40 
30 
50 
50 
25 


255,224 
17,723,608 
212,959 
177,179 
3,368,182 


SPEECH    ON   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE. 


131 


Peas  and  beans, 


60,168  bush,  at   1  dollar 


Irish  potatoes 5,057,769     " 

Sweet  potatoes 187,991     " 

Tobacco 10,454,449  Ibs. 

Cloverseed 103,197  bus. 

Flax '. . . .      446,932  Ibs. 

Flaxseed 188,880  bus. 

Maple  sugar 4,588,209  Ibs. 

Molasses 197,308  gals. 

Wine 48,207     " 

Garden  products  returned  in  money,  value . , 
Orchard        "  "  "  "    . 


40  cents 
50     " 

7     " 

4  dolls. 
10  cents 
75  " 

6     " 
35     " 

1  dollar 


$60,168 

2,023,107 

.     93,995 

731,811 

412,748 

44,693 

141,660 

275,292 

69,057 

48,207 

214,004 

695,921 


Aggregate $38,137,695 

This  list  includes  nearly  every  agricultural  product  of  the  earth 
in  that  State,  except  hay,  which  is  omitted,  because  in  Georgia 
there  is  no  return  for  fodder,  which,  in  that  State,  answers  the 
same  purpose  of  hay  in  Ohio,  as  food  for  stock.  The  quantity  of 
each  product  produced  is  given  from  the  census  tables.  The 
values  run  out  are  such  as  are  believed  to  be  the  usual  average 
values  of  each  article  in  that  State,  except  the  products  of  gar 
dens  and  orchards,  which  are  taken  from  the  tables — no  other 
values  are  put  upon  the  products  in  the  tables.  The  estimate 
above  stated  is  believed  to  be  a  fair  one.  Now  let  us  take  up  the 
returns  for  Georgia  and  place  upon  them  a  like  estimated  ave 
rage  value.  Here  we  have  : 


Wheat 1,088,534  bushels  at  $1  00. 

Indian  corn 30,080,099          "  50. 

Cotton— bales 499,091  400  Ibs.  at          8. 

Eice 38,950,691  Ibs.  at  4. 

Peas  and  beans 1,142,011  bushels  at  $1  00. 

Sweet  potatoes 6,986,428          "  25. 

Irish  potatoes 227,378          "  50. 

Oats 3,820,044          "  37£ 

Cane  sugar 1,642  hhds.  1,000  Ibs.  6. 

Molasses 216,150  gallons  at          25. 

Orchard  products  of 

Garden  products  of 


$1,088,534 
15,040,049 
15,970,912 
1,558,027 
1,142,011 
1,746,607 
113,689 
1,432,516 
98,520 
54,037 
92,766 
76,500 

Aggregate $38,414,168 

An  amount  so  far  from  falling  under  that  of  Ohio  as  might 
have  been  expected,  actually  exceeds  it  about  a  quarter  of  a  mil 
lion,  without  extending  the  Georgia  list  to  rye,  barley,  tobacco,  and 
other  articles  which  are  produced  in  that  State.  Away,  then,  with 
this  prating  cry  about  slavery  paralyzing  the  energy  of  a  people, 
and  opposing  the  development  of  the  resources  of  a  country. 

If  I  were  to  take  the  statistics  of  any  other  State,  and  go 
through  them  in  the  same  way,  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
an  equally  favorable  result  to  Georgia  would  follow  I  took  the 


4:32         SPEECH   IN  REPLY   TO   MB.  CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO. 

State  of  Ohio,  not  as  any  disparagement  to  her,  but  to  show  that 
even  in  the  South,  where  they  say  the  soil  is  sterile,  and  the  popu 
lation  inert,  and  cursed  with  slavery,  as  it  is  said  to  be,  Georgia, 
with  one  half  of  the  population,  and  only  two  thirds  of  the  value 
of  land,  exceeds  in  agricultural  products  by'one  quarter  of  a  mil 
lion  of  dollars  the  great  giant  of  the  West. 

Now,  then,  if  the  people  of  Kansas,  the  people  of  Nebraska,  or 
the  people  of  any  other  portion  of  our  territory,  going  from  old 
Massachusetts,  going  from  New  York,  or  from  Indiana,  or  from 
the  South,  learning  and  consulting  wisdom  from  the  past,  and 
profiting  by  experience  from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  should  think 
it  practically  best  for  the  happiness  of  themselves  and  for  their 
posterity  in  the  far  distant  future,  to  adopt  the  social  institutions 
of  Georgia  in  preference  to  those  of  Indiana,  if  they  prefer  the 
institutions  of  the  South  to  those  of  the  North,  I  say  they  should 
not  be  deprived  of  their  right  to  do  it,  and  the  gentleman  from 
Indiana,  and  those  who  act  with  him,  should  not  set  themselves 
up  as  judges  and  "  masters"  to  control  the  matter. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


"GEORGIA   AND    OHIO." 

SPEECH  IN  REPLY  TO  MR.  CAMPBELL,  OF  OHIO. 
DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JANUARY  15,  1855. 
A  correspondent  of  the  Macon  Messenger,  says  of  this  speech — 

"  I  have  been  present  at  all  the  debates  of  the  present  session, 
both  in  the  Senate  and  House,  and  I  assure  you  that  the  house 
which  your  able  representative  drew  together  this  morning  was 
the  largest  that  has  assembled  during  the  present  Congress— in 
fact  it  reminded  the  "  old  inhabitants"  of  the  times  when  throng 
ing  and  anxious  crowds  poured  into  the  galleries  and  filled  up 
all  the  vacant  places,  to  hear  Calhoun,  Clay  and  Webster." 

The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the 
Union  on  the  Pacific  railroad  bill,  Mr.  STEPHENS  said  : — 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  Pacific  rail 
road  bill.  Some  weeks  ago,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Indiana 
[Mr.  MACE]  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  in  this 
House  a  bill  to  prohibit  slavery  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  ac 
companied  that  notice  with  a  speech,  to  which  I  replied.  To  the 
remarks  then  submitted  by  me,  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Ohio  [Mr.  CAMPBELL]  made  a  reply.  That  speech  of  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio  has  been,  according  to  the  notice  which  he  gave, 
considerably  amplified  and  elaborated,  as  it  appears  in  the  Globe. 


SPEECH  IN   EEPLY  TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         433 

It  is  to  that  amplified  and  elaborated  speech  that  I  intend  to  de 
vote  what  I  have  to  say  on  this  occasion. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  is  very  true,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  gentle 
man  from  Georgia  [Mr.  STEPHENS]  remarks,  that  I  did,  pursu 
ant  to  notice,  amplify  and  enlarge  my  remarks,  as  is  usual,  under 
similar  circumstances.  Still,  it  is  certainly  but  just  to  me  that 
the  gentleman  should  couple  with  his  notice  of  the  fact,  the  fur 
ther  truth  that  I  permitted  him  to  elaborate,  just  as  much  as  he 
desired,  the  various  remarks  made  by  him  during  the  hour  al 
lotted  to  me.  I  submitted  to  him  all  the  notes  of  that  speech, 
and  gave  him  the  opportunity  of  making,  in  his  remarks,  all  the 
alterations  that  he  desired  to  make.  And  even  after  the  proof- 
sheets  were  prepared,  I  again  extended  the  same  courtesy  to  the 
gentleman,  or  rather,  I  made  the  proposition  to  him  that  he 
might  amplify  just  as  much  as  he  desired.  I  wish  this  statement 
to  go  with  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  If  the  gentleman  has  no  other  more  pertinent 
interruption  to  make  during  my  remarks,  I  trust  he  will  permit 
me  to  proceed  without  thus  encroaching  upon  my  time. 

It  is  true,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  revised  and  corrected  that 
portion  of  the  remarks  made  by  myself.  It  is  true  that  the 
gentleman  submitted  the  proof-sheets  of  his  speech,  as  printed, 
to  me,  but  I  did  not  choose  to  reply  in  that  way  to  any  matter, 
except  such  points  as  were  drawn  out  in  the  debate  between  us 
on  this  floor,  in  that  speech.  I  chose  to  reply  here,  and  in  the 
way  I  now  propose  to  do.  This  was  what  I  was  just  going  to 
state  if  I  had  not  been  interrupted.  As  to  the  amplification  of 
his  speech  I  do  not  object.  I  did  not  state  the  fact  in  the  spirit 
of  objection.  It  is  not  to  that  point  I  was  speaking.  But  this 
was  my  object  in  stating  the  fact :  Inasmuch  as,  in  the  speech 
published,  I  do  appear  to  have  appeared  and  taken  part  in  a  dis 
cussion  with  the  gentleman  on  some  points ;  and,  inasmuch  as 
there  are  many  matters  elaborated  in  the  published  speech, 
which  are  inserted  before  my  answers  to  the  gentleman's  interro 
gatories,  it  may,  to  some  not  aware  of  the  reason,  seem  strange 
that  I  made  no  reply  to  the  gentleman  upon  these  points.  It  is 
for  this  reason  I  made  the  statement,  and  it  is  for  the  purpose 
of  replying  to  the  gentleman's  statistics,  I  now  desire  to  occupy 
some  of  the  time  of  the  committee.  I  do  not  object  to  the  gen 
tleman's  amplification.  Not  at  all,  sir.  But,  sir,  I  have  some 
thing  to  say  in  reply  to  these  statistics,  which  were  not  exhibited 
by  the  gentleman  on  the  floor.  I  have,  sir,  a  great  deal  to  say  in 
reply  to  them ;  and  I  therefore  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity 
— the  earliest  that  I  have  had — to  reply  to  them.  I  have  more 
to  say  in  reply  to  them,  much  more  than  I  can  speak  in  one  hour, 
the  limited  time  that  I  have. 

But,  sir,  before  going  into  the  statistics  given  in  the  forepart 
of  the  gentleman's  speech,  in  which  he  attempted  to  reply  to  some 
of  the  positions  assumed  by  me  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from 
28 


434         SPEECH  IN   REPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF  OHIO. 

Indiana,  [Mr.  MACE,]  I  wish  to  state  a  few  things  in  passing ; 
and  I  will  here  say  that,  so  far  as  my  consistency  is  concerned, 
(the  main  object  of  the  gentleman's  attack,)  I  have  nothing  now 
to  add  to  what  I  have  heretofore  said.  My  record  may  stand  as 
it  is  made  up.  I  have  no  desire  to  change  or  modily  it  in  the 
least ;  not  even  to  cross  a  t  or  dot  an  i.  By  it,  as  it  stands,  I  am 
willing  to  abide  while  Hying,  and  by  it  to  abide  when  dead.  It 
was  not  made  for  a  day,  or  for  an  election,  but  for  all  time  to 
come.  But  to  proceed. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  in  the  tenor  of  his  argument,  makes 
me  use  language  which  I  did  not  utter  on  this  floor — or,  at  least, 
he  seems  to  put  words  into  my  mouth  that  I  did  not  use.  Now, 
when  an  argument  is  not  staged  fairly,  it  argues  either  a  want  of 
comprehension,  or  a  consciousness  of  the  want  of  capacity  or 
ability  to  answer  it  on  the  part  of  one  who  thus  fails  fairly  to 
present  it.  Either  alternative  does  not  bespeak  much  for  the 
formidable  qualities  of  an  opponent.  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman,  too 
high  a  regard  for  the  intelligence  of  the  gentleman,  to  think 
that  he  did  not  understand  my  argument.  I  believe  that  his  ob 
ject  was  rather  to  size  the  argument  to  his  capacity  to  reply  to 
it,  as  he  supposed. 

For  instance,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  gentleman  says  in  his  speech, 
"  we  are  told  that  the  South  gets  nothing,  that  the  South  asks 
nothing."  Now,  sir,  in  my  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Indiana, 
[Mr.  MACE,]  I  spoke  of  the  great  fact,  well  known,  living,  and 
"  fixed  fact,"  that  the  industrial  pursuits  of  the  South  do  not,  in 
the  main,  look  for  the  protection  or  fostering  care  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  that  the  general  industrial  pursuits  of  the  North 
do.  I  did  not  say  that  the  South  gets  nothing,  or  that  the  South 
asks  nothing.  I  said  that  the  South  asks  but  few  favors  ;  and  I 
repeat  it,  sir.  Nor  am  I  to  be  answered  by  being  told  that 
General  Jackson  and  Mr.  Clay — southern  men — were  in  favor  of 
fostering,  as  far  as  they  could  by  proper  legislation,  the  interests 
of  the  North.  That  does  not  disprove  the  fact  which  I  uttered, 
that  the  South  does  not  generally  look  to  the  government  for 
protection,  and  that  the  North  does.  Sir,  it  rather  proves  the 
opposite,  and  confirms  my  statement.  Because  I  stated  that  the 
industrial  pursuits  of  the  North  look  to  the  government  for  pro 
tection,  is  that  statement  disproved  by  the  fact  that  southern 
men,  or  even  myself,  have  voted  to  favor  those  interests,  as  far 
as  was  consistent  with  public  duty  ?  So  far  from  disproving,  it 
tends  rather  to  establish  it.  What  I  stated  on  this  point  was  in 
reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  whose  tone  of  argument 
was,  that  the  South  carried  measures  promotive  of  their  interests 
by  bluster. 

But,  sir,  to  come  down  to  the  argument  as  the  gentleman  states 
it !  If  he  cannot  or  does  not  wish  to  meet  me  on  the  ground  that 
the  South  asks  but  few  favors,  as  I  stated  it,  and  that  the  North 
does  look  more  to  the  government  for  its  fostering  care  to  pro- 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   MB.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         135 

tect  its  various  interests  than  the  South  does,  very  well,  I  will 
meet  him  on  his  own  ground.  If  he  cannot  answer  my  position,  but 
must  size  my  argument  so  as  to  make  it  stand  as  he  has  it, 
that  "  the  South  asks  nothing,  and  gets  nothing,"  I  will  com« 
clown  even  to  his  ground,  so  far  as  his  answer  is  concerned. 

The  gentleman  says,  in  the  first  place,  putting  the  language  in 
my  mouth,  "The  South  asks  nothing,  gets  nothing;"  and  he 
then  replies,  "  Certainly  not,"  and  refers  us  to  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana.  And  then,  putting  the  words  in  my  mouth,  again  he 
says,  "  The  South  asks  nothing." 

" '  The  South  asks  nothing  !'  •  In  1803,  we  paid  fifteen  millions  to  get 
Louisiana. 

" '  The  South  asks  nothing  f  In  1819,  we  paid  five  millions  to  get 
Florida. 

" '  The  South  asks  nothing  !'  In  1845,  her  policy  brought  Texas  into 
the  Union,  with  a  promise  that  she  might  carve  herself  up  into  five 
States. 

"  '  The  South  asJcs  nothing  /'  Her  Texas  annexation  brought  the  war 
with  Mexico,  and  more  territory  was  demanded  as  'the  fruits  of  that 
war.' " 

I  think  he  does  great  injustice  to  the  North  when  he  says  that 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  was  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the 
South. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  is  true  that,  at  the  time  I  made  a  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  I  caught  the  idea  which  he  presented, 
that  the  South  asked  nothing,  from  his  manner  of  expression,  and 
those  were  the  words  which  I  used  at  the  time  as  they  were 
reported. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  cannot  yield  to  the  gentleman  unless  he  be 
very  brief. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  to  what 
he  did  say.  He  did  say,  as  reported,  "  all  that  we  ask  of  you  is 
to  keep  your  hands  out  of  our  pockets.  That  is  all  the  South 
asks,  and  we  do  not  even  get  that." 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir.  The  gentleman  will  find  not  only 
those  words,  but  others  in  my  speech  "  as  reported,"  all  going  to 
establish  the  leading  point  in  that  part  of  the  argument,  that  the 
South  asked  but  "  few  favors"  compared  with  the  wants  of  the 
North.  That  was  my  position,  and  not  that  we  asked  "  nothing" 
or  got  "nothing."  Some  of  these  favors  I  specified;  but,  in  the 
main,  I  asserted,  or  meant,  in  substance,  to  assert,  as  every  one 
well  understood,  that  the  greatest  desire  of  the  South  was,  that 
the  general  government  would  keep  its  hands  out  of  her  pockets. 
And  this  is  true ;  and  the  gentleman  did  not  attempt  to  reply  to 
it,  except  as  I  have  stated.  I  come  now,  then,  to  the  gentleman's 
reply  to  the  position  that  the  South  "  asks  nothing."  To  this  he 
says,  "that  we  paid  $15,000,000  for  Louisiana."  To  this  I  say, 
it  was  not  the  South  alone  that  secured  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana.  Nor  was  it  alone  for  the  benefit  of  the  South.  There 


436         SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO. 

were  but  twenty-three  votes  in  this  House  against  that  acquisi 
tion.  It  was  a  national  acquisition.  Sustained  by  national  men 
from  all  sections,  there  was  hardly  a  show  of  opposition  to  it 
from  any  quarter.  I  should  suppose  that  Ohio  would  be  the  last 
State  in  this  Union  to  raise  her  voice  against  that  measure,  or 
hold  that  it  was  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the  South.  What 
would  have  become  of  her  trade  and  commerce  if  Louisiana  and 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  were  still  in  the  hands  of  Spain  or 
France  ?  If  the  fifteen  millions  of  money,  which  we  paid,  be  the 
grounds  of  the  gentleman's  objection,  al^that  has  been  more  than 
refunded  by  the  sale  of  public  lands  embraced  within  the  limits 
of  that  acquisition.  These  sales,  up  to  this  time,  have  amounted 
to  $25,928,732  23,  besides  what  is  yet  to  be  realized  from  the 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  square  miles  yet  to  be  sold.  So  the 
fifteen  millions  was  no  bonus  to  the  South,  even  if  the  South  had 
carried  the  measure  for  their  own  benefit. 

Again,  was  the  acquisition  of  that  territory  made  to  extend  the 
southern  area  of  the  country  ?  Let  us  examine  this  view  of  the 
subject.  What  extent  of  territory  was  comprised  within  the 
limits  of  Louisiana  ?  It  extended  not  only  far  up  the  Mississippi 
river,  to  Iowa  and  Minnesota,  but  westward  to  the  Rocky  moun 
tains  even,  without  now  mooting  the  question,  whether  Oregon 
was  not  then  acquired.  Grant,  for  the  sake  of  this  argument, 
that  Oregon  was  not  then  acquired.  The  territory  of  Louisiana 
stretched  from  the  extreme  south  on  the  gulf  to  the  extreme 
north  on  parallel  49°  of  north  latitude.  All  that  immense  domain, 
including  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  was  part  of  it.  Was  all  this 
southern  territory  ?  The  object  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  in 
alluding  to  this  subject  seemed  to  be  to  intimate  that  all  this 
acquisition  was  for  the  South.  But  how  is  the  fact  ?  Let  us  look 
at  it.  By  this  acquisition,  taking  all  the  Indian  territory  into 
account,  the  South  acquired  only  231,960  square  miles,  while  the 
North  got  by  it  66*7,599  square  miles !  Is  this  the  way  that  the 
South  is  to  be  taunted  ?  When  the  very  acquisition,  held  up  as 
the  taunt,  brought  more  than  double  the  extent  of  territory  to  the 
North  that  it  did  to  the  South ! 

Again,  in  the  acquisition  of  Florida,  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
says  that  the  South  carried  that  measure  at  a  cost  of  $5,000,000. 
This  is  the  tenor  of  his  argument.  Sir,  this  measure  was  not  car 
ried  by  the  South,  nor  for  the  South  exclusively.  There  was  not 
even  a  division  in  this  House  on  the  question.  As  to  the  extent 
of  the  acquisition,  if  we  did  not  get  Oregon  when  we  acquired 
Louisiana,  we  certainly  acquired  it  when  when  we  purchased 
Florida.  It  was  by  the  treaty  then  made  that  we  got  Spain's 
relinquishment  to  Oregon.  The  North,  by  this  measure,  got 
308,052  square  miles  of  territory,  including  the  territories  of 
Oregon  and  Washington,  while  the  South  got  only  the  State  of 
Florida,  59,268  square  miles.  If  the  South  carried  this  question 
by  her  votes,  I  ask  were  those  who  gave  the  votes  sectional  in* their 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   MR.    CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         437 

policy  ?  Did  not  the  South,  if  that  be  the  gentleman's  argument, 
gain  quite  as  much,  nay,  more,  nay,  double,  nay,  more  than  five 
times  as  much  territory  for  the  North  in  that  acquisition,  as  she 
obtained  for  herself?  Again,  in  the  acquisition  of  Texas,  consid 
ering  the  Mexican  war  as  part  of  that  proceeding,  as  the  gentle 
man  does,  the  South  only  secured  23t,504  square  miles,  while  the 
North  secured  632, 157  square  miles,  including  California,  New 
Mexico,  and  Utah. 

The  gentleman  says,  that  the  North  is  opposed  to  acquisitions ; 
that  she  never  looks  outward,  she  looks  inward ;  and  that  while 
the  South  is  always  looking  to  the  extension  of  territory,  the 
North  is  looking  to  the  improvement  of  what  we  have.  This,  so 
far  as  looking  to  acquisition  is  concerned,  I  think  is  not  true  of 
the  North  entirely.  It  may  be  true  of  some  men  there.  But  it  is 
not  true  of  all  her  statesmen.  In  the  early  history  of  this  coun 
try,  there  were  men  at  the  North,  and  one  in  particular,  who  had 
no  such  circumscribed  views  as  those  attributed  to  the  North 
generally.  The  man  to  whom  I  allude  stands  first,  in  my  opinion, 
of  all  the  northern  statesmen  of  his  day.  Indeed,  he  stands,  in  my 
judgment,  amongst  the  men  of  his  day — next  to  him  who  has  no 
equal  in  any  age  or  country.  That  man  hailed  from  New  York, 
and  for  strength  of  judgment,  for  profound  thought,  for  far-seeing 
statesmanship,  he  has  never  been  equalled  by  any  of  the  illustrious 
men  since  brought  upon  the  public  arena  by  that  honored  State. 
That  man,  sir,  was  Alexander  Hamilton ;  and  at  the  formation  of 
our  constitution,  after  that  provision  in  the  original  draft,  that 
new  States  to  be  formed  out  of  territory  then  belonging  to  the 
United  States  might  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  was  so  modified 
as  to  leave  out  the  restriction,  so  that  other  States  (not  confining 
it  to  the  then  territory  of  the  Union)  might  come  in,  Mr.  Hamilton 
is  said  to  have  expressed  the  opinion,  with  approbation,  that,  in 
time,  we  should  get  Florida,  Louisiana,  Texas,  Mexico,  and  even 
ultimately  squint  toward  South  America.  That  was  the  man,  sir, 
who,  in  his  day,  was,  every  inch  of  him,  a  "  Sampson  in  the  field, 
and  a  Solomon  in  council."  Nay,  more;  he  was  one  of  those 
gifted  geniuses  who  caught  from  the  "  sunrise  of  life"  that  "mys 
tical  lore"  which  enabled  him  to  see  those  coming  events  which 
were  casting  their  "  shadows  before." 

I  take  this  occasion  thus  to  speak  of  Mr.  Hamilton,  because  he 
is  a  most  striking  exception  to  the  gentleman's  remark,  and,  also, 
because  in  his  day  it  suited  the  purposes  of  many  of  his  cotempo- 
raries  to  detract  from  his  merits,  his  name,  and  his  character ; 
men  who  barked  at  his  heels,  just  as  the  wolves  and  the  hyenas 
do,  upon  the  track  of  the  noble  king  of  the  forest ;  men  who  never 
met  him  in  open  conflict  but  to  be  vanquished,  and  many  of  whom 
even  quailed  from  his  presence. 

But,  sir,  let  us  look  for  a  moment,  to  all  our  acquisitions.  So 
far  as  Louisiana  is  concerned,  if  the  gentleman  begrudges  the 
money  paid  for  it,  even  if  it  had  not  been  reimbursed  by  the  sale 


438         SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO. 

of  lands,  the  State  of  Georgia,  alone,  has  long  since  more  than 
paid  that  debt  by  her  munificent  grant.  She  ceded  to  the  "United 
States  that  large  territory  out  of  which  the  two  nourishing  States 
— Alabama  and  Mississippi — have  since  been  made ;  out  of  which, 
and  from  which,  you  have  realized,  by  sale  of  lands,  much  more 
than  the  whole  cost  of  Louisiana.  I  have  now  before  me  a  table 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  in  the  States  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi.  It  amounts  to  $32,205,612  18;  the 
consideration  paid  to  Georgia  was  $1,250,000 ;  with  the  extin 
guishment  of  the  Indian  title  within  her  own  limits;  all  this 
amounted  to  about  $11,000,000;  so  that  if  it  be  the  amount  of 
money  that  lays  heavily  upon  his  breast,  it  may  be  some  consola 
tion  to  the  gentleman  to  know  that  from  this  grant  by  Georgia,  a 
southern  State,  you  have  a  clear  gain  of  over  $20,000,000. 

But,  let  us  look  at  all  our  acquisitions.  There  are  now,  accord 
ing  to  the  census  report,  belonging  to  the  United  States,  2,936,166 
square  miles  of  territory,  including  States  old  and  new,. as  well  as 
territories.  There  have  been  acquired,  outside  of  the  old  thirteen 
States,  2,599,105  square  miles.  Of  all  these  2,599,105  square 
miles  thus  acquired,  there  lies  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30',  1,845,101 
square  miles,  and  there  lie  south  of  it  but  753,404  square  miles. 
Here,  sir,  take  Louisiana,  take  Florida,  take  Texas,  take  all  our 
acquisitions,  the  Georgia  and  other  State  grants  or  cessions,  leav 
ing  out  the  Mesilla  valley,  acquired  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
which  is  a  small  item,  and  you  see  this  astounding  fact,  in  answer 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  on  this  point,  that  1,845,701 
square  miles  of  these  acquisitions  lie  north  of  36°  30',  and  only 
753,404  lie  south  of  it !  If  all  north  of  36°  30'  is  to  be  considered 
northern  territory,  then  the  North  has  •  got  by  acquisition  more 
than  double  what  the  South  has  ! 

Will  the  gentleman,  then,  pretend  to  answer  me,  when  I  say, 
that  the  South  asks  but  few  favors,  by  pointing  to  these  acquisi 
tions  ?  Were  these  especial,  peculiar,  and  great  favors  to  the 
South  ?  When  I  have  shown  that  they  were  carried  by  patriots 
from  all  sections  of  the  Union,  and  that  more  than  double  the 
square  miles  acquired  north  of  that  line  which  is  usually 
referred  to  as  defining  northern  and  southern  limits  ? — am  I,  I 
say,  to  be  thus  answered  in  the  face  of  these  facts  ?  Sir,  if  the 
wild  boy  in  the  forest,  with  his  bow  and  arrow,  were  vain  enough 
to  imagine  that  he  could  bring  down  the  moon  by  the  prowess  of  his 
arms  as  a  huntsman,  and  should  as  vainly  make  the  attempt,  he 
would  not  come  further  short  of  his  mark  than  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  does  by  letting  fly  such  a  shaft  as  this,  either  at  me  or  my 
argument. 

But  again,  he  asks,  who  was  it,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
chat  desired  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  President  $10,000,000  for 
the  acquisition  of  Cuba  ?  I  can  say  to  him  that  I  did  not,  and  if 
there  is  any  gentleman  upon  this  floor  from  the  South  that  did,  I 
did  not  know  it.  I  know  of  no  such  movement  in  this  House, 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         439 

either  at  midnight  or  open  day,  or  any  other  period  of  the  twenty- 
four  hours.  But  I  tell  the  gentleman,  in  passing,  as  he  has 
alluded  to  Cuba,  that  I  am  for  the  acquisition  of  that  island.  I 
believe  its  acquisition  would  promote  the  best  interest  of  the 
island  and  of  this  country ;  and  that  it  would  promote  the  interest 
of  Ohio  more  than  of  Georgia.  I  am  not  governed  by  sectional 
feelings  or  interests  on  this  question.  Its  acquisition  would 
advance  the  interests  of  both  countries  ;  and  it  would  advance  the 
interest  of  the  North  quite  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  the  South,  so 
far  as  its  trade  and  its  commerce  is  concerned.  But  I  was  not,  and 
am  not,  for  putting  $10,000,000,  or  any  other  sum  in  the  hands  of 
this  administration  to  buy  it.  I  do  not  believe  that  they  desire  it.  I 
have  never  believed  that  it  was  either  their  wish  or  policy  to  obtain 
it,  as  several  of  the  most  ardent  friends  of  Cuba  on  this  floor  very 
well  know.  I  gave  them  this  opinion  long  ago,  when  some  of 
them  questioned  its  correctness.  The  sequel  will  show  whether  I 
was  right  or  not.  But,  sir,  as  I  have  been  drawn  into  saying 
thus  much  on  this  subject,  it  may  be  proper  that  I  should  say 
more.  I  am  not  for  this  acquisition  upon  any  plan  or  principles 
inconsistent  with  the  strictest  national  honor  and  national  faith. 
But  I  am  in  favor  of  a  repeal  of  those  laws  on  our  own  statute 
book  which  make  it  penal  and  punishable  as  a  crime  of  high  grade 
for  an  American  citizen  to  take  part  in  any  revolution  that  may 
take  place  in  Cuba — any  effort  of  the  people  there  to  throw  off 
Spanish  domination  and  oppression  ? 

If  the  people  of  Cuba  were  permitted  to  exercise  their  own  free 
will  and  volition,  unawed  by  the  superior  power  of  Spain,  as  I  am 
informed  and  believe,  they  would  not  remain  a  day,  much  less  a 
month  or  year,  longer,  under  the  heavy  taxes,  burdens,  and  exac 
tions  of  that  country  which  now  claim  their  allegiance  only  to 
oppress  and  to  plunder  them.  And  if  they  do  thus  desire  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  their  oppressors,  why  should  we  punish 
American  citizens  for  no  reason  but  aiding  them  in  their  patriotic 
attempt  ?  Why  should  we  keep  the  peace  for  Spain  ?  When  did 
she,  by  her  conduct  toward  us,  put  us  unfler  such  obligations  ? 
Was  it  when  she  held  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  or  Florida  ? 
Was  it  when  she  armed  the  savages  of  the  frontiers  against  our 
undefended  people  ?  Was  it  when  she  nurtured  in  her  bosom 
such  enemies  to  our  peace — such  wretches  as  Ambrister  and 
Arbuthnot — whom  General  Jackson  had  to  hang  without  judge 
or  jury  ?  When,  I  say,  did  Spain,  by  her  comity  and  good  neigh 
borhood,  put  us  under  an  obligation  to  punish  our  citizens  for 
aiding  the  native  Cubans  not  only  to  rid  themselves  of  present 
heavy  and  onerous  burdens  and  unjust  impositions,  but  to  pre 
vent  that  ultimate  destiny  which  French  and  English  policy  has 
concocted  for  them?  In  this  matter  I  may  have  a  little  more 
sympathy  for  my  own  race  than  the  gentleman  has.  Why  should 
we  hold  while  Spain  skins  ?  I  feel  no  disposition  to  stand  by  and 
see  one  of  the  fairest  islands  of  the  world — the  Queen  of  the  An- 


440        SPEECH  IN  EEPLY   TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO. 

tilles — despoiled,  rifled,  and  plundered,  and  then  made  a  St.  Do 
mingo  or  a  Jamaica  of,  any  more  than  I  would  to  see  a  stately  ship, 
well  freighted,  pillaged  by  pirates,  scuttled,  and  then  sent  adrift 
to  sink,  without  one  hand  to  save.  This,  sir,  is  pretty  much  the 
present  condition  of  Cuba.  She  is  now  undergoing  the  pillaging 
process ;  how  soon  she  will  be  scuttled  and  sent  adrift  to  sink  I 
know  not.  Sir,  Mr.  Webster,  as  early  as  the  delivery  of  his 
Panama  speech,  intimated  very  strongly  that  the  policy  of  thir 
country  never  would  or  could  allow  Cuba  to  pass  into  other  hands 
than  those  of  Spain.  Mr.  Everett  in  his  celebrated  and  most 
masterly  letter  on  the  proposed  tri-party  treaty,  very  clearly  fol 
lows  up  the  same  views.  And  Mr.  Clay  is  generally  understood 
to  have  maintained,  until  the  day  of  his  death,  that  this  country 
ought  to  go  to  war  rather  than  permit  Cuba  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  England.  But  who,  sir,  would  not  infinitely  prefer  to  see 
England  hold  it,  than  to  see  her  policy  carried  out  of  extirpating 
the  white  race  there  and  filling  the  island  with  Guinea  negroes 
and  African  savages  ?  If  the  first  would  justify  a  national  war, 
the  latter  may,  in  my  opinion,  much  more  justify  us  in  barely  per 
mitting  such  of  our  citizens,  as  see  fit,  to  prevent  it,  if  they  can. 
If  such  a  course  should  bring  acquisition  by  the  free  choice  of  the 
people  of  Cuba,  without  consulting  Spain,  I  say  let  it  bring  it.  It 
is  a  matter  in  which  I  should  be  governed  much  moVe  by  the 
wishes  of  the  people  of  Cuba  than  the  interests  of  Spain. 

Our  trade  with  Cuba  is  now  large ;  but  this  would  be  greatly 
augmented  if  it  were  part  of  this  country,  and  under  our  laws.  We 
should  not  only  be  relieved  of  the  heavy  duties  paid  on  our  exports 
there,  but  the  productions  of  the  island  consumed  in  this  country 
would  be  largely  increased,  and  her  capacity  to  consume  our  pro 
ducts,  agricultural  and  manufactured,  be  increased  in  the  same 
ratio.  I  have  a  document  before  me  that  gives  the  amount  of 
duty  levied  and  paid  now  on  our  exports  there  upon  being  intro 
duced  into  the  island.  On  beef  is  $3  14  per  barrel ;  pork,  $4  89 
per  barrel;  hams,  $3  14;  lard,  $4  19;  lumber,  $5  60;  hoops,  $8  39; 
coaches,  $261.  But  I  cannot  read  all.  The  same  document  gives 
the  price  of  a  cargo ,  shipped  from  New  Orleans  to  Havana,  of 
flour,  hams,  and  lard — valued  at  New  Orleans  at  $6,121  52 — on 
which  the  duties  paid  were  $8,028  93.  This  cargo  was  made  up 
of  such  articles  as  Ohio  produces  in  abundance.  These  are  her 
staples.  Would  it  not,  therefore,  be  greatly  to  her  interest  to 
have  the  same  aceess  to  the  markets  of  Havana  as  to  New 
Orleans  ?  I  cannot  now  dwell,  indeed  scarcely  refer,  to  the  vast 
interest  that  shipping  men  and  merchants  generally,  as"  well  as 
manufacturing  capitalists,  have  in  this  acquisition. 

So  far  as  the  African  and  slavery  is  concerned,  I  ask  the  gen 
tleman,  and  the  candid  of  all  parties  everywhere,  whether  the  con 
dition  of  that  population  would  not  be  better  under  our  govern 
ment  than  under  the  Spanish  government?  If  there  be  real 
sympathy  for  the  African,  and  real  opposition  to  what  is  called 


SPEECH   IN   KEPLY   TO   MB.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO.         141 

the  atrocities  of  the  slave  trade,  would  not  that  trade  be  imme 
diately  abolished  on  the  island  becoming  part  of  the  United  States  ? 
View  the  subject,  therefore,  commercially  or  politically,  as  it  affects 
interests  North  or  South,  what  rational  objection  can  there  be  to 
it  ?  Why,  then,  should  gentlemen  be  opposed  to  it,  either  in  open 
day,  or,  if  need  be,  at  midnight  ? 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  did  not  intend  to  dwell  on  the  subject  as  long 
as  I  have  done,  I  only  intended  to  make  a  very  brief  reply  to  the 
gentleman's  remark  about  a  ten  million  affair,  of  which  I  know 
nothing ;  but,  in  passing,  I  have  taken  occasion  to  tell  him  what  I 
am  for.  And  I  repeat,  in  conclusion  on  this  point,  that,  on  the 
score  of  humanity,  on  the  score  of  public  interest  and  statesman 
ship — indeed,  in  every  point  of  view,  where  is  the  objection  to  the 
acquisition  of  Cuba,  if  it  can  be  honorably  and  properly  acquired  ? 
I  see  none,  but  an  obstinate,  fixed,  and  blind  dogmatical  nonsense. 

With  this  digression  I  pass  to  those  other  points  in  the  gentle 
man's  speech  to  which  I  wish  to  reply.  In  the  remarks  submitted 
by  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  I  made  an  ex 
hibit  of  statistics,  showing  that  Georgia,  with  less  than  half  the 
population,  with  nearly  a  third  less  land  in  quantity,  and  less  than 
a  third  in  value,  compared  with  Ohio,  not  only  equalled,  but  ex 
ceeded,  that  State  in  her  agricultural  productions,  according  to 
the  census  returns  of  1850.  This  I  did,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
showing,  as  the  gentleman  argues,  that  the  labor  of  an  African 
slave  is  better  calculated  to  develop  the  natural  resources  of  a 
country  than  the  labor  of  an  American  freeman,  but  for  the  pur 
pose  of  showing  the  utter  futility  of  the  argument  against  African 
slavery  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
such  development,  even  in  a  highly  prosperous  degree.  It  was 
from  no  unkind  or  ungenerous  feeling  toward  Ohio,  her  people,  or 
her  interests,  on  my  part,  that  I  selected  that  State  for  the  com 
parison.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  because  I  looked  upon  her  as 
one  of  the  most,  if  not  the  most,  prosperous  of  all  our  northern 
States ;  and,  also,  because  Georgia  and  Ohio  are  both  eminently 
agricultural  States.  The  comparison  of  States  engaged  in  similar 
pursuits  is  much  better  to  illustrate  the  working  of  different  sys 
tems,  than  that  of  States  whose  people  follow  different  pursuits. 
So  much,  then,  for  my  object.  To  the  statistics  exhibited  in  pur 
suance  of  that  object,  and  that  object  only,  the  gentleman  has  made 
an  elaborate  reply.  That  reply  it  is  my  purpose  now  to  review. 

What  I  said  on  the  former  occasion,  together  with  the  calculations 
then  presented,  I  have  before  me,  and  ask  attention  to  it.  To  wit : 

"  I  had  occasion,  some  time  since,  for  another  purpose  than  the  present, 
to  look  a  little  into  the  statistics  of  Georgia,  compared  with  those  of  other 
States.  I  selected  the  State  of  Ohio,  because  it  was  one  of  the  most  pros 
perous  of  the  North — often  styled,  and,  perhaps,  justly  too,  the  giant  of 
the  West.  According  to  the  census  returns  in  1850,  Ohio  had  of  improved 
lands  9,851,493  acres — Georgia  had  only  6,378,479  acres ;  the  cash  value 
of  the  Georgia  land,  so  improved  and  under  culture,  was  $95,753,445, 
while  the  cash  value  of  the  Ohio  lands  was  returned  as  $358,758,603 — 


44:2         SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    MR.    CAMPBELL,    OF    OHIO. 


Ohio  had  nearly  one  third  more  land  in  a  state  of  improvement  than 
Georgia  had,  and  returned  more  than  three  times  the  cash  value  of  the 
Georgia  lands.  The  whole  population  of  Ohio  was  1,980,329,  the  whole 
population  of  Georgia,  white  and  black,  was  906,185.  The  population  of 
Ohio,  therefore,  was  more  than  double  that  of  Georgia.  Here  we  see  her 
free  labor  more  than  double  in  number,  working  one  third  more  land, 
worth,  by  valuation,  more  than  three  times  that  of  Georgia.  From  these 
elements  it  might  not  be  surprising  to  see  her  agricultural  products  greatly 
exceeding  those  of  Georgia,  without  resorting  to  the  '  curse  of  slavery '  to 
account  for  it.  But  how  stand  the  facts  ?  Ohio  produced  the  following 
articles : 

Wheat 14,487,351  bushels,  at  80  cents , 

Buckwheat 638,060 

Indian  corn 59,078,695 

Eye 425,918 

Barley 354,358 

Oats 13,472,742 

Peas  and  beans 60,168 

Irish  potatoes 5,057,769 

Sweet  potatoes 187,991 

Tobacco 10,454,449  Ibs. 

Cloverseed 103,197  bushels, 

Flax 446,932  Ibs. 

Flaxseed 188,880  bushels, 

Maple  sugar 4,588,209  Ibs. 

Molasses....- ..      197,308  gals. 

Wine f     48,207     " 

Garden  products  returned  in  money,  valu< 

Orchard        "  "  "  "     695,921 


Is,  at  80  cents  .  .  .  .  $ 

^11,589,880 

40     "     .... 

255,224 

30     "     

17,723,608 

50     "     .... 

212,959 

50     "     

177,179 

25     "     .... 

3,368,182 

1  dollar  .... 

60,168 

40  cents  .... 

2,023,107 

50     "     .... 

93,995 

7     "     .... 

731,811 

s,   .       4  dolls  

412,748 

10  cents  

44,693 

s,         75      "     .... 

141,660 

6     "     .... 

275,292 

35      "     .... 

69,057 

1  dollar.... 

48,207 

214.004 

Aggregate $38,137,695 

"  This  list  includes  nearly  every  agricultural  product  of  the  earth  in 
that  State  except  hay,  which  is  omitted,  because,  in  Georgia,  there  is  no 
return  for  fodder,  which,  in  that  State  answers  the  same  purpose  of  hay 
in  Ohio,  as  food  for  stock.  The  quantity  of  each  product  produced  is 
given  from  the  census  tables.  The  values  run  out  are  such  as  are  believed 
to  be  the  usual  average  values  of  each  article  in  that  State,  except  the 
products  of  gardens  and  orchards,  which  are  taken  from  the  tables — no 
other  values  are  put  upon  the  products  in  the  tables.  The  estimate  above 
stated  is  believed  to  be  a  fair  one.  Now  let  us  take  up  the  returns  for 
Georgia,  and  place  upon  them  a  like  estimated  average  value.  Here  we 
have : 

Wheat 1,088,534  bushels  at  $1  00   ....  $1,088,534 

Indian  corn 30,080,099       "  50  15,040,049 

Cotton— bales 499,091  400  Ibs.  at          8  ....  15,970,912 

Rice 38,950,691  Ibs.  at  4  ....    1,558,027 

Feas  and  beans 1,142,011  bushels  at    1  00   ....    1,142,011 

Sweet  potatoes 6,986,428       "  25   ....    1,746,607 

Irish  potatoes 227,378       "  50   ....       113,689 

Oats 3,820.044      "  37£....    1,432,516 

Cane  sugar 1,642 hhds.,  1000 Ibs.   6   ....         98,520 

Molasses 216,150  gallons  at         25....         54,037 

Orchard,  products  of 

Garden,  products  of 76,500 

Aggregate $38,414,168 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,  ~OF   OHIO.         443 

"  An  amount,  so  far  from  falling  under  that  of  Ohio,  as  might  have  been 
expected,  actually  exceeds  it  above  a  quarter  of  a  million,  without  extend 
ing-  the  Georgia  list  to  rye,  barley,  tobacco,  and  other  articles  which  are 
produced  in  that  State.  Away,  then,  with  this  prating  cry  about  slavery's 
paralyzing  the  energy  of  a  people,  and  opposing  the  development  of  the 
resources  of  a  country." 

In  commenting  upon  these  exhibits,  or  tables,  the  gentleman 
files  no  objection  to  the  items  of  products,  except  the  article  of 
hay,  which,  he  says,  ought  not  to  be  omitted  in  the  Ohio  list.  He 
complains,  however,  of  the  prices  or  values,  and  the  basis  on  which 
the  estimates  are  founded.  He  objects  to  putting  Georgia  wheat 
at  one  dollar,  and  Ohio  wheat  at  eighty  cents.  This  is  what  he 
calls  a  "  sliding  scale."  He  insists  that  the  products  of  both 
States  should  be  placed  on  the  same  basis,  and  estimated  on  the 
same  scale  of  prices.  This  is  what  he  calls  the  basis  of  equality. 
On  this  point  we  are  at  issue,  and,  in  determining  this  issue,  I  am 
willing  to  abide  by  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  ablest  writers 
on  political  economy.  The  basis  of  my  calculations,  was  the  usual 
or  average  rates  of  prices  in  each  State,  respectively,  at  that  time. 
I  did  not  make  those  calculations  to  answer  the  purpose  of  an 
hour  speech  here,  or  an  electioneering  campaign.  But  I  based 
them  upon  principles  that  will  stand  the  test  of  time,  and  which 
can  never  be  successfully  assailed.  If  the  committee  will  indulge 
me,  I  will  give  the  gentleman  the  principles  referred  to.  I  read 
from  Adam  Smith : 

"  There  is  in  every  society  or  neighborhood  an  ordinary  or  average  rate 
of  both  wages  and  profit  in  every  different  employment  of  labor  and  stock. 

"  There  is  likewise  in  every  society  or  neighborhood  an  ordinary  or 
average  rate  of  rent,"  etc. 

Again: 

"  These  ordinary  or  average  rates  may  be  called  the  natural  rates  of 
wages,  profit  and  rents,  at  the  time  and  place  in  which  they  commonly 
prevail." 

The*  same  principles  are  laid  down  by  all  writers  upon  the  same 
subject.  *  The  basis  upon  which  the  value  of  any  products  of  in 
dustry  are  to  be,  or  should  be,  estimated,  in  comparing  one  country 
or  State  with  another,  is  not  that  of  equality  as  the  gentleman 
proposes,  but  the  ordinary  or  average  rates  or  values  at  the  time 
and  places  respectively.  I  gave  the  ordinary  average  values  of 
the  Georgia  products  at  the  time,  soon  after  the  census  was  taken, 
and  the  place — Georgia — where  they  were  produced.  I  did  the 
same  by  Ohio. 

Here,  sir,  I  might  leave  the  subject,  so  far  as  the  principles  are 
concerned  upon  which  the  estimates  were  made,  and  so  far  as  the 
gentleman's  objection  to  the  sliding  scale  is  concerned ;  but  so  far 
as  the  justice  or  correctness  of  the  scale  adopted  for  Ohio  pro 
ducts  is  concerned,  I  have  this  to  say :  That  if  there  is  any  inac 
curacy  in  it,  or  injustice  done  to  Ohio  by  it,  as  a  whole,  no  one  is 
more  chargeable  with  it  than  the  gentleman  himself.  And  this,  I 


444         SPEECH   IN  EEPLY  TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO. 

say,  in  my  own  vindication.  For  it  so  happens  that  I  have  pre 
served  the  calculations  made  by  me  in  the  construction  of  these 
tables  more  than  two  years  ago,  and  amongst  the  papers  I  find  a 
memorandum,  given  to  me,  upon  my  request,  by  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio,  which  furnished  me  with  the  data  upon  which  I  framed 
the  Ohio  table.  These  tables,  as  I  said  before,  were  prepared  soon 
after  the  census  was  taken,  for  quite  another  purpose  than  their 
exhibition  in  this  place.  And  here  is  the  paper,  with  a  list  of  the 
products  grown  in  Ohio,  which  I  submitted  to  him  with  a  request 
that  he  would  put  down  opposite  each  article  its  ordinary  average 
value  or  price  in  Ohio,  at  that  time.  This  he  did ;  and  here  is  the 
paper : 

About  the  average 
at  Cincinnati. 

Wheat  per  bushel 80  cents. 

Buckwheat. 40       " 

Eye 50 

Barley 50 

Maple  sugar,  per  pound 6 

Molasses,  per  gallon 35 

Irish  potatoes,  per  bushel 40 

Sweet  potatoes,  per  bushel 50 

Oats,  per  bushel 25 

Tobacco 7 

Peas  and  beans 1  dollar. 

Cloverseed 5       " 

Flaxseed 75  cents. 

Indian  corn 35       " 

He  put  the  price  of  wheat  at  80  cents  per  bushel ;  buckwheat  at 
40  cents,  rye  at  50  cents,  and  so  on.  The  whole  list  is  identical 
with  the  value  in  the  table  I  made  for  Ohio  products,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  Indian  corn,  which  he  put  at  35  cents,  and  cloverseed 
at  $5.  I  put  Indian  corn  for  Ohio  at  30  cents,  and  cloverseed  at 
$4 ;  because  other  gentlemen  from  Ohio,  whom  I  likewise  consulted 
on  the  subject,  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  30  cents  for  corn,  and 
$4  for  cloverseed,  were  fair  average  rates  for  those  articles.  And 
moreover,  his  average  was  for  Cincinnati.  And  I  wished  to  get 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  average  for  the  State.  In  Georgia  I  did 
not  take  the  Savannah  or  Augusta  prices  of  wheat  or  corn,  but 
what  I  thought  a  fair  average  throughout  the  State.  Fairness  and 
accuracy  were  my  objects. 

Now,  sir,  the  gentleman  in  reply  to  me  on  the  facts  deduced 
from  his  list  of  prices,  has  given  another  list,  vastly  different 
from  the  one  he  furnished  me  with.  Let  us  look  at  some  of  these 
changes — 80  cents  a  bushel  was  what  he  put  wheat  at  on  my  list ; 
$2  per  bushel  is  what  he  now  rates  it  at — Indian  corn  he  then  put 
at  35  cents  per  bushel ;  he  now  puts  that  article,  at  90  cents.  The 
changes  in  these  two  products,  without  going  further  in  the  in 
vestigation,  make  a  difference  of  over  $45,000,000  in  favor  of 
Ohio  !  This  is  "  sliding"  with  a  vengeance,  as  we  say  sometimes 
down  South  !  And  it  is  in  this  way  that  he  now  gets  the  Ohio 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         145 

products  to  run  up  to  $145,838,232  51.  And  no  wonder!  Sir, 
I  based  my  calculations  and  estimates  upon  principles  from  which 
I  will  never  slide  ;  upon  these  principles  the  tables  prepared  by 
me  were  given  to  the  world.  1  maintain  them  now.  As  the  dis 
tinguished  gentleman  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  BENTON,]  when  in  the 
other  wing  of  the  Capitol,  said  of  his  plan  of  the  Mexican  war — 
these  tables,  sir,  "will  do  to  keep."  And  I  intend  to  keep  them ; 
not,  however,  in  my  pocket,  as  I  believe  he  kept  his  plan  of  the 
war,  but  to  use  another  phrase  of  that  honorable  gentleman,  I 
intend  to  keep  them  by  spreading  them  upon  the  "  parliamentary 
history  of  the  country." 

But  I  will  not  let  the  gentleman  off  with  this  exposition,  which 
is  certainly  quite  enough  to  establish  the  accuracy  and  fairness 
of  my  tables.  What  he  complains  most  of,  is  what  he  calls  the 
sliding  scale — that  is,  fixing  Georgia  wheat  at  $1,  and  Ohio  wheat 
at  80  cents.  He  insists  that  the  estimation  for  both  States  should 
be  on  the  same  scale  of  prices.  Well,  sir,  I  will  meet  him  on 
that  ground.  I  will  take  as  a  basis  for  the  value  of  the  products 
of  both  States,  the  very  paper  he  furnished  me  with  for  Ohio.  I 
will  bring  the  scale  of  prices  of  Georgia  products  down  to  the 
average  which  he  put  upon  similar  products  in  Ohio,  but  not  in 
New  York. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  suppose  the  gentleman  would  not  misstate 
my  positions,  and  I  beg  leave  to  set  him  right. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Be  very  brief,  for  I  have  no  time  to  spare. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Then  I  will  not  take  up  the  gentleman's  time  ; 
I  merely  say  that  he  does  not  state  my  position  correctly. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  understand  the  gentleman's  position,  as  he 
stated  it,  to  be,  that  the  products  of  Ohio,  and  those  of  Georgia, 
should  be  taken  at  New  York  prices. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  said  I  considered  it  as  the  great  market  of 
the  country. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Very  well.  Then  I  was  not  mistaken  in  his 
position.  He  insists  that  the  products  of  both  States  should  be 
estimated  at  New  York  prices,  which,  I  say,  is  as  erroneous  as 
to  estimate  the  value  of  the  lands  in  each  State  at  New  York 
prices.  New  York  is  not  the  market  for  Georgia  sweet  potatoes, 
or  Ohio  corn,  or  Ohio  hay.  The  proper  basis  for  the  value  of 
each  is  the  average  values  in  each  State,  upon  the  plan  on  which 
my  tables  were  framed.  But,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  I  say, 
I  will  adopt,  as  a  basis,  the  Ohio  prices,  as  the  gentleman  gave 
them  to  me  himself,  and  make  the  Georgia  products  square  with 
that  basis,  so  far  as  we  produce  similar  articles.  I  will  bring 
Georgia  corn  from  fifty  cents  down  to  thirty-five,  and  raise 
Georgia  potatoes  up  to  fifty  cents,  which  is  just  as  absurd  as  it 
would  be  to  estimate  a  town  lot  in  the  small  village  in  which  I 
live  at  either  Cincinnati  or  New  York  prices,  for  the  same  quan 
tity  of  land.  And  I  will  put  cotton,  which  Ohio  does  not  pro 
duce,  at  the  commercial  value  fixed  upon  it  for  that  year  at  the 


4:46         SPEECH   IN   EEPLY    TO    MR.    CAMPBELL,    OF    OHIO. 


custom-houses,  which  is  quite  as  fair  as  to  put  it  at  the  Cincinnati 
market  price,  inasmuch  as  it  would  cost  quite  as  much  to  get  it 
there  as  to  the  sea-board.  By  House  Doc.  No.  136,  1st  sess.  32d 
Congress,  the  price  of  the  cotton  crop  embraced  in  the  census 
returns,  was  valued  at  11^  cents,  and  a  little  over.  Then,  sir, 
estimating  the  values  of  the  products  of  both  States,  not  at  New 
York  prices,  but  at  Ohio  prices,  as  given  by  the  gentleman,  and 
putting  cotton  at  the  actual  value  placed  upon  it  officially,  by 
this  official  report  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  how  stands  the  re 
sult  ?  I  have  made  the  calculation.  I  have  the  result  before 
me.  Here  are  the  figures  : 

OHIO    LIST. 


Wheat  

14,487,351  bushels  at 

80.... 

$11,589,880 

Buckwheat  

,  638,000       "        at 

40  

255,220 

Indian  corn  

59,078,695  '  "         at 

35.... 

20,677,543 

Eye  , 

,  425,918       "         at 

50.... 

212,959 

Barley  

354,358       u        at 

50.... 

177,179 

Oats  

13,472,742       "        at 

25  

3,368,185 

Peas  and  beans  

60,168       "        at 

$1  00.... 

60,161 

5,057,769       "        at 

40  

2,023,181 

Sweet  potatoes  

,  187,991       "        at 

50.... 

93,907 

Tobacco  

10,454,449  pounds  at 

rt 

731,895 

Gloverseed  

103,197  bushels  at 

$5  00.... 

515,985 

Flax  

446,932       "        at 

10.... 

44,693 

Flaxseed  

188,880       "        at 

75.... 

141,660 

Maple  sugar  

4,588,209  pounds  at 

6.... 

275,292 

Molasses  

197,308  gallons  at 

35  

69,057 

Wine  

48.207       "        at 

$1  00.... 

48,207 

Garden  products  

214,004 

Orchard  products  

695,921 

Aggregate $41,204,870 


GEORGIA    LIST. 


Wheat 1,088,534 

Indian  corn 30,080,079 

Cotton— bales 499,091 

Kice 38,950,691 

Peas  and  beans 1,142,011 

Sweet  potatoes 6,986,428 

Irish  potatoes 227,378 

Oats 3,820,044 

Barley ...        11,501 

Cane  sugar— hhds 1,642 

Molasses 216,150 

Tobacco 423,924 

Eye 53,750 

Orchard  products 

Garden  products 


bushels  at 
at 

400  Ibs.  at 

pounds  at 

bushels  at 

"        at 

at 

"        at 
at 

1,000  Ibs., 
gallons  at 
pounds  at 
bushels  at 


80. 
35. 
1H 

4~ 
00. 
50. 
40. 
25. 
00. 

6. 
35. 

7. 
50. 


$870,827 

10,528,034 

22,625,458 

1,558,027 

1,142,011 

3,493,214 

'  90,951 

955,011 

11,501 

98,520 

75,652 

29,644 

26,875 

92,766 

76,500 


Aggregate $41,675,021 

And  on  this  basis  of  calculation  the  Ohio  products  amount  to 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO.        447 

$41,204,870,  and  the  Georgia  products  to  $41,675,021  ;  making  a 
balance  in  favor  of  Georgia  of  $470,151- — near  half  a  million — 
and  larger,  by  $193,678,  than  the  balance  in  her  favor  upon  the 
system,  which  was  the  correct  one,  adopted  by  me  at  first.  So  I 
meet  the  gentleman  upon  his  own  ground,  and  results  similarly 
favorable  to  Georgia  are  arrived  at. 

But  the  gentleman  insists  that  hay  should  not  be  left  out  of 
the  Ohio  list  of  products.  My  reasons  for  leaving  it  out  were 
given  before.  It  is  because  there  is  no  return  in  the  census  for 
fodder  or  shucks,  that  species  of  forage  that  we  use  for  stock  in 
Georgia.  We  produce  at  least  600,000,000  pounds  of  fodder,  esti 
mating  1,000  pounds  to  every  50  bushels  of  corn ;  besides  im 
mense  quantities  of  corn  shucks,  which  constitute  the  food  for 
our  stock,  just  as  hay  does  in  Ohio.  For  this  large  and  valuable 
product  there  is  no  return. 

But  the  gentleman  says  that,  in  Ohio  they  make  more  corn  than 
we  do,  and  hence  more  fodder.  Not  so,  sir.  In  Ohio  they  do  not 
save  their  fodder ;  at  least  it  is  not  usual  with  them  to  do  it. 
They  put  their  labor  upon  saving  hay.  We  grow  an  immense 
amount  of  grass  in  Georgia,  but  we  do  not  cut  it  or  save  it.  We 
put  our  labor  in  saving  corn  blades  and  shucks  ;  and  we  might  as 
well  claim  our  uncut  grass  in  our  cornfields,  as  a  product  to  go 
into  the  estimate,  as  for  the  gentleman  to  claim  the  unsaved 
corn  blades  which  grow  on  their  corn  stalks.  And  beside  this, 
sir,  there  is  no  return  in  the  census  for  cotton  seeds,  which,  in 
Georgia,  amount  in  value,  annually,  at  a  moderate  estimate,  at 
not  less  than  $1,000,000.  So,  for  these  reasons  I  did  omit  the 
article  of  hay,  as  I  stated,  and  did  so  properly,  as  I  conceive; 
and  with  its  omission,  and  the  omission  of  the  corresponding 
products  of  Georgia,  upon  the  gentleman's  own  basis  of  calcu 
lation — not  his  last  one,  of  $Few  York  prices,  but  the  basis  he 
gave  me  two  years  and  upwards  ago — Georgia,  with  a  popula 
tion  of  less  than  half  that  of  Ohio,  and  with  land  a  little  over 
two  thirds  in  quantity,  and  something  under  one  third  in  value, 
produced,  in  1849,  according  to  the  census  returns,  agricultural 
products  exceeding  those  of  Ohio  in  amount  nearly  $500,000. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  intend  to  stop  here  with  the  gentleman  and 
his  statistics.  I  will  even  follow  him  to  Xew  York,  and  his  prices 
there.  I  have  his  tables  of  estimates  by  which  he  made  the  annual 
products  of  Ohio  amount  to  $145,838,232  51,  and  those  of 
Georgia  to  only  $65,488,267  18.  These  tables  are  not  given  in 
his  pamphlet  speech  though  they  appeared  with  the  speech  as 
published  in  the  Globe.  But  I  intend  to  preserve  them,  whether 
he  does  or  not.  I  shall  preserve  them  as  we  do  uncurrent  coin 
in  my  country.  For  that  purpose  I  have  brought  them  here  this 
day  to  exhibit  to  the  House  and  the  Country ;  and,  in  the  face  of 
the  gentleman,  the  House,  and  the  country,  to  nail  them  to  the 
counter  as  spurious  in  their'  elements  and  composition.  Upon 
what  principle  can  he  estimate  Ohio  hay  at  $16  per  ton,  because 


448         SPEECH   IN  REPLY  TO   MB.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO. 

hay  sells  in  New  York  at  that  price,  when,  perhaps,  a  bundle  of  Ohio 
hay  never  went  there  for  sale  in  the  world  ?  Upon  what  principle 
can  he  put  Ohio  wheat  at  $2  per  bushel,  because  wheat  sells  in 
New  York  city  at  that  price,  when,  by  his  own  account  of  it,  in 
the  list  furnished  me,  he  put  its  price  in  Ohio  at  80  cents  ?  Nay, 
more — upon  what  principle  is  it  that  he  now  puts  Georgia  sweet 
potatoes  at  50  cents  per  bushel,  when  they  are  notoriously  selling 
in  New  York  at  25  cents  a  half  peck,  or  $2  a  bushel  ?  I  have  a 
daily  New  York  paper  before  me,  giving  the  market  price  of 
sweet  potatoes  at  the  rates  I  have  mentioned.  Upon  what 
principle  is  it,  I  say,  that  the  gentleman  makes  up  a  table  of  such 
a^character  as  this  ?  Why  did  he  not  give  the  New  York  prices 
to  the  entire  list  of  Georgia  articles,  if  he  took  that  as  the 
national  market  ?  The  difference  in  the  Georgia  products,  in  his 
table,  on  this  one  article  of  sweet  potatoes,  amounts  to  more  than 
ten  millions  of  dollars  against  Georgia.  It  is  for  this,  and  divers 
other  great  errors,  I  nail  his  table  to  the  counter,  here  in  open 
day,  that  the  results  deduced  from  them  may  not  mislead  the 
uninformed  and  unsuspecting  elsewhere  or  anywhere. 

But,  sir,  I  said  I  would  take  up  his  results,  attained,  as  they 
were,  and  meet  the  gentleman  even  on  this,  his  own,  ground  of 
last  retreat,  in  a  comparison  of  the  agricultural  prosperity  of  the 
two  States,  according  to  all  just  and  correct  principles  ofrpoliti- 
cal  economy.  And  it  is  upon  such  principles  alone,  I  will  treat 
or  argue  such  a  subject. 

According  to  his  exibit,  the  cash  value  of  the  Georgia  farms 

is $95,753,444 

Value  of  farming  implements  and  machinery,  is 5.894,150 

This  gives  a  capital  of $101,647,594 

The  cash  value  of  the  Ohio  farms  is $358,758,603 

Farming  implements  and  machinery  is 12,750,585 

This  gives  a  capital  of $371,509,188 

The  products  of  Georgia,  upon  the  principle  of  his  calcu 
lation,  which  I  have  exhibited,  amount  in  value  to $65,488,267 

And  those  of  Ohio  to 145,838,232 

In  this  way  the  gentleman  arrives  at  the  conclusion,  where  he 
boastingly  says,  that  Ohio  was  ahead  of  Georgia,  annually, 
$80,349,965. 

But  let  us  see  how  such  a  conclusion  can  be  drawn,  even  if  the 
results  were  as  he  has  figured  them  out,  upon  any  sound  princi 
ples  of  political  economy.  According  to  these  well-settled  prin 
ciples,  in  comparing  the  relative  prosperity  of  any  State,  or 
business,  with  another,  the  amount  of  the  capital,  as  well  as  the 
products,  is  to  be  taken  into  the  account.  All  writers  upon  this 
science — for  it  is  a  science,  and  one  of  the  profoundest  of  the 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO.          449 

sciences  which  real  philosophers  ever  taught — lay  this  down  as 
one  of  the  axioms,  or  the  postulates,  upon  which  they  build  their 
systems.  However  they  may  disagree  upon  other  matters,  all 
agree  upon  this  fundamental  truth.  Mr.  McCulloch,  whose  work 
I  have  before  me,  after  stating  that  the  species  of  labor,  or  kind 
of  employment,  is  not  to  be  looked  at  so  much  as  its  results, 
says: 

"  It  is  not,  therefore,  by  the  absolute  amount  of  its  capital,  but  by  its 
power  of  employing  that  capital  with  advantage — a  power  which,  in  all 
ordinary  cases,  is  correctly  measured  by  the  common  and  averaged  rate 
of  profit — that  the  capacity  of  a  country  to  increase  in  wealth  and  popu 
lation  is  to  be  estimated." 

And  further  on,  he  says : 

"  The  average  rate  of  profit  would  seem  to  be,  on  the  whole,  the  best 
barometer — the  best  criterion  of  national  prosperity." 

Now,  what  is  here  stated  of  national  prosperity,  or  the  capacity 
to  produce  wealth,  is  as  true  of  States  as  of  nations.  And  the 
main  object  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  seemed  to  be  to  show, 
that  the  capacity  of  Ohio,  with  her  free  labor,  was  much  greater 
in  the  production  of  wealth,  or  the  development  of  her  resources, 
than  that  of  Georgia,  with  her  slave  labor.  Then,  sir,  let  the 
case  stand  as  he  puts  it.  Ohio,  with  free  labor,  on  an  investment 
of  $371,509,188  in  capital,  produces,  with  her  labor,  $145,858,232. 
This  is  39  per  cent.  That  is  the  Ohio  product  toward  capital, 
bears  the  ratio  of  39  per  cent.,  while  Georgia,  on  an  investment  of 
capital  of  $101, 647, 594,  produces,  withher  labor,  $65,488,267,  whic^ 
is  64  per  cent.  And  this  is  just  25  per  cent,  in  favor  of  Georgia 
upon  the  gentleman's  own  extravagant  and  erroneous  assump 
tions.  The  gentleman  may  say  that  the  value  of  the  slaves  should 
be  added  to  the  Georgia  capital.  Not  so,  sir  ;  for  the  purposes  of 
this  argument  and  the  object  of  the  gentleman,  which  was  to  show 
the  superiority  of  voluntary  over  involuntary,  or  free  over  slave 
labor,  in  the  amount  of  production  and  in  the  development  of  a 
country's  resources.  The  question  he  presents  has  but  a  single 
point,  and  that  is,  the  productiveness  of  labor.  Here  we  have 
Ohio  labor  as  it  is,  whether  free  or  hired — which  is  a  way  of  buy 
ing  at  a  high  price — working  her  capital  in  land,  and  suitable 
implements  in  husbandry,  and  producing,  in  gross,  at  the  rates 
of  39  per  cent,  on  capital ;  and  Georgia  labor  as  it  is,  whether 
free  or  bought,  working  her  capital  of  the  same  character  in  like 
business,  throwing  off  like  productions,  in  gross,  at  the  rates  of 
64  per  cent,  on  capital. 

But  the  gentleman  says  that  the  live-stock  in  each  State  should 
be  taken  into  the  account  of  the  annual  products.  This  is  a  most 
singular  idea.  But  let  it  be  done,  and  then  how  stands  the 
result?  Still  more  favorable  to  Georgia.  Every  step  he  takes 
plunges  him  deeper  in  the  mire  of  his  errors.  For  Georgia  has 
much  more  live-stock,  in  proportion,  either  to  her  population, 
white  and  black,  or  capital,  than  Ohio  has.  Of  neat  cattle, 
29 


4:50         SPEECH  IN  REPLY  TO   MB.   CAMPBELL,    OF    OHIO. 

Georgia  has  1,097,528.  Ohio,  with  about  double  the  population, 
has  only  1,358,947.  This  is  exclusive  of  swine  or  hogs.  For 
when  the  gentleman  talks  of  driving  Ohio  fat  hogs  to  Georgia, 
he  must  be  reminded  that  Georgia  has  more  hogs  than  Ohio  has. 
Georgia,  by  the  census,  had  2,168,617  hogs,  while  Ohio,  with 
her  much  larger  population,  had  only  1,964,770.  But  if  the 
whole  value  of  the  live-stock  in  each  State  be  taken  into  the  ac 
count,  I  say  the  result  will  still  be  more  favorable  to  Georgia. 
The  Ohio  live-stock  is  put  down  at  $44,121,741.  In  Georgia  it  is 
put  down  at  $25,728,416.  If  these  amounts  be  added  to  the 
respective  products  before  stated,  we  shall  have  the  Ohio  aggre 
gate,  as  the  gentleman  states,  $189,959,973,  and  the  Georgia 
aggregate,  $91,216,683.  We  should  then  have  the  Georgia 
capital,  of  $101,647,594,  producing  $91,216,683,  which  is  89  per 
cent,  and  the  Ohio  capital,  of  $371,509,188,  producing  $189,959, 
973,  which  is  only  51  per  cent.  Being  a  production  at  the  ratio 
of  38  per  cent,  on  capital  in  favor  of  Georgia. 

I  have,  Mr.  Chairman,  gone  through  with  this  illustration  more 
for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  fallacies  of  the  gentleman  than 
for  any  other  purpose ;  and  to  show  that,  notwithstanding  his 
most  untenable  assumptions  as  to  the  basis  of  prices,  and  his 
want  of  adherence,  even  to  his  own  basis,  first,  in  not  abiding  by 
his  own  list  furnished  me  for  Ohio  products,  and  then  in  not 
putting  Georgia  potatoes  at  the  New  York  <5ity  market  price, 
when  he  adopted  that  basis ;  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  his 
effort  to  make  it  appear  that  the  agriculture  of  Ohio,  under  her 
system  of  labor,  is  more  prosperous  than  that  of  Georgia  under 
her  system,  has,  according  to  the  soundest  principles  of  political 
economy,  most  signally  failed.  I,  therefore,  leave  this  branch  of 
the  subject  where  I  left  it  before.  The  same  exhibits  I  then  made 
on  this  subject,  I  again  make,  and  hold  them  up  to  the  strictest 
scrutiny.  Their  results  may  astonish  many  who  have  never 
devoted  attention  and  investigation  to  the  subject ;  but  the 
principles  upon  which  they  are  founded,  and  the  great  truths 
they  illustrate,  may  be  railed  at,  but  they  can  never  be  refuted. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  my  time  is  fast  passing  away,  and  I  too, 
must  pass  hurriedly  on. 

The  gentleman  says  there  are  other  statistics  besides  those  of  ag 
riculture  ;  and  he  goes  into  an  enumeration  of  several  classes  of  them 
in  comparing  the  physical,  as  well  as  as  intellectual,  developments 
of  Ohio  with.  Georgia ;  he  instances  manufactures,  public  improve 
ments,  colleges,  churches,  and  some  others  I  can.  only  glance  at. 

The  first  he  gives,  is  the  following  table: 

MANUFACTURES,  ETC. 

Per  cent 
Capital  invested.          Raw  material.  Annual  product.          profit 

Ohio $29,019,538        $34,677,937        $62,647,259        49.97 

Georgia 5,460,483  3,404,917  7,086,525        36.06 


Ohio  ahead $23,559,055        $31,273,020        $55,560,734        13.91 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         151 


From  this  table  one  would  suppose  that  Ohio  had  the  capital 
here  stated  invested  in  manufactures,  with  the  result  stated ;  but, 
sir,  by  turning  to  the  census  returns,  we  shall  find  that  much  more 
is  covered  by  the  et  caetera  than  by  manufactures ;  under  this  et 
csetera  come  mechanic  arts  and  mining.  But  in  the  census  I  find 
no  clue  to  what  these  mechanic  arts  are,  or  the  details  of  mining — 
I  do,  however,  to  manufactures  proper,  which  is  the  heading  title  of 
the  table.  We  have  in  the  census  (Compendium,  page  180)  the  man 
ufacture  of  cotton,  woollens,  pig-iron,  wrought  iron,  iron  castings, 
and  distilleries  and  breweries  ;  these  are  all  the  detailed  heads  of 
manufactures  proper  that  the  census  gives — and  the  whole  capital 
in  Ohio,  invested  in  all  these  branches  together,  is  but  $6,161,644. 

Here  are  the  exact  amounts  taken  from  the  census : 

Capital  invested  in  manufactures  of  cotton $297,000 

"  woollens 870,220 

pig-iron 1,503,000 

wrought  iron 164,800 

"  iron  castings 2,063,650 

distilleries  and  breweries 1,262,974 


$6,161,644 

I  do  not  include  fisheries  and  salt  making,  for  how  they  can  be 
properly  classed  with  manufactures  I  cannot  imagine ;  so  that  et 
csetera  covers  a  large  portion  of  the  $29,019,538,  set  down  by  the 
gentleman  under  the  head  of  manufactures,  etc.  And  now,  sir,  I 
will  take  up  two  of  the  most  important  of  these  manufactures 
proper,  to  wit :  cotton  and  woollens,  and  see  how  they  stand,  re 
spectively,  in  Ohio  and  Georgia : 


Product.    Per  cent. 

$2,135,044      55 
88,750      56 


Product.    Per  cent. 

$394,700       33 
1,111,027       31 


No.  of 
establishments. 

Cotton.      35 
Woollen      3 

GEORGIA   MANUFACTURES. 

Value 
Capital  invested.        Raw  material.        Cost  of  labor. 

$1,736,156        $900,419        $276,818 
68,000             30,392            19,615 

OHIO    MANUFACTURES. 


No.  of 
establishments. 

Cotton        8 
Woollen  130 


Capital  invested. 
$297,000 

870,220 


Value 
Raw  material. 

$237,060 
578,423 


Cost  of  labor. 

56,691 
257.215 


From  this  it  appears  that,  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton  and 
woollens,  (which  are  those  things  that  the  mind  generally  turns 
to  when  speaking  of  manufactures,)  so  far  from  the  State  of  Ohio 
being  13.91  per  cent,  ahead,  when  we  take  the  ratio  of  capital  to 
production,  she  is,  in  the  first,  22  per  cent.,  and  in  the  other,  25 
per  cent,  behind.  I  have  not  looked  into  the  manufacture  of  iron, 
to  see  how  the  result  would  stand,  because  Georgia  has  very  little 
capital  invested  in  that  business,  and  Ohio  has  certainly  not 
enough  to  make  it  a  matter  of  great  importance  there. 


452         SPEECH   IK    BEPLY   TO    MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO. 

Under  the  head  of  distilleries  and  breweries,  I  find  that  Ohio 
has  a  capital  invested  of  $1,262,974,  in  which  they  used  330,950 
bushels  of  barley,  3,588,140  bushels  of  corn,  and  281,750  bushels  of 
rye;  out  of  which,  they  made  96,943  barrels  of  ale,  and  11,865, 
150  gallons  of  whiskey!  But  the  price  of  the  corn  or  grain  is 
not  given,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  what  ratio  the  value  of 
the  product  in  this  business  bore  to  the  investment.  But  it  may 
be  that  it  is  under  this  head  that  a  very  heavy  percentage  was 
counted,  which  increased  the  mean  average  on  manufactures  in 
all  branches  taken  as  a  class.  But  in  Georgia,  on  the  manufac 
ture  of  cotton,  the  production,  after  taking  off  the  cost  of  labor 
and  raw  material,  bears  to  capital  invested  the  ratio  of  55  per 
cent. ;  in  Ohio  but  33  per  cent.  In  Ohio,  on  woollen  manufac 
tures,  the  similar  ratio  of  product  to  capital  is  31  per  cent. ;  in 
Georgia  56  per  cent.  1  I  cannot  dwell  upon  these  things. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  You  are  wrong  there. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir.  I  am  never  wrong  upon  a  matter  I 
have  given  as  close  attention  to  as  I  have  given  to  this. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  can  prove  it. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  You  had  a  chance  to  show  that  I  was  wrong 
once  before,  but  you  signally  failed.  Try  it  again. 

I  come,  now,  to  railroads.  The  gentleman  says  that  Ohio  has 
2,367  miles  of  railroad  in  operation,  while  Georgia  has  but  884 
by  the  census,  placing  Ohio  1,485  miles  ahead.  Very  well,  sir.  This 
is  a  very  good  showing  ;  and  if  she  had  five  times  as  many  more 
miles,  it  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  what  I  said  about 
agricultural  products.  But,  sir,  as  favorable  as  this  showing 
seems  to  be  for  Ohio,  if  we  look  a  little  into  the  matter,  it  will 
not  be  so  bad  for  Georgia  as  the  gentleman  seems  to  imagine.  I 
find,  by  looking  into  the  Railroad  Journal,  and  taking  all  the 
roads  in  Ohio  and  Georgia — the  condition  of  which  is  given  in 
that  publication — that  1,071  miles  of  the  Ohio  roads,  which  have 
a  capital  of  $18,094,102,  have,  also,  a  funded  debt  of  $12,225,400  ; 
while  in  Georgia,  553  miles  of  her  roads,  the  capital  of  which  is 
$9,099,975,  have  a  funded  debt  of  only  $732,401. 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  roads  in  Ohio,  as  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  get  information,  are  two  thirds  unpaid  for ;  while  in 
Georgia  less  than  one  twelfth  of  hers  is  unpaid  for.  If  all  the 
roads  in  each  State,  therefore,  stand  in  a  similar  condition ;  or 
if  the  1,071  in  one,  and  553  in  the  other,  may  be  taken  as  a 
sample  for  the  whole  in  each  State,  then  Georgia  has  more  road 
completed  and  paid  for  than  Ohio  has.  Two  thirds  of  2,367,  the 
number  of  miles  of  the  Ohio  roads,  is  1,578,  which  taken  from  that 
sum,  leaves  only  789  miles  in  operation  and  paid  for.  While 
one  twelft'h  taken  from  884  miles  of  the  Georgia  roads,  leaves 
811  miles  complete  and  paid  for.  And  why  should  not  these 
improvements,  boasted  of,  as  they  are,  as  evidences  of  prosperity, 
be  subjected  to  this  test?  Is  it  any  more  evidence  of  the  thrift 
or  prosperity  of  a  people,  that  they  have  railroads  for  which  they 


SPEECH  IN   EEPLY  TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         453 

are  heavily  encumbered,  than  it  is  of  the  thrift  or  prosperity  of  a 
man,  from  the  fact  that  he  accumulates  property  by  running  in 
debt  for  it  ?  A  man's  real  thrift  can  only  be  correctly  ascertained 
by  knowing  not  only  what  he  has,  and  what  he  makes,  but  what  he 
owes.  And  the  same  principle  is  equally  applicable  to  States  or 
communities.  With  this  view  of  the  subject  therefore,  and 
especially  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  much  greater 
population  of  Ohio  than  Georgia,  the  railroad  showing  is,  by  no 
means,  prejudicial  to  the  character  of  the  latter  State,  for  that 
sort  of  progress,  which  pays  as  it  goes,  and  which  never  fails  in 
the  end  to  secure  the  most  lasting  and  permanent  prosperity. 

But  the  gentleman  says  that  "  there  is  another  sort  of  develop 
ment  to  be  considered — that  of  the  mind."  And  he  Cites  to  us 
the  colleges  in  Ohio,  26  in  number,  against  13  in  Georgia,  putting 
Ohio  13  ahead.  Now,  sir,  let  us  see  if  he  is  entitled  to  this 
boasting  exultation  upon  any  just  principles  of  comparison. 
Ohio,  it  is  true,  has,  by  the  census  returns,  26  colleges,  while 
Georgia  has  but  13.  But  Ohio  has  a  white  population  of  1,955, 
050,  while  Georgia  has  but  521,512.  Ohio,  therefore,  might  very 
well  be  expected  to  have  more  colleges ;  but  if  the  gentleman 
claims  the  number  of  colleges  as  evidence  of  greater  develop 
ment  of  mind,  Ohio  ought  to  have  a  number  equal  to  the  ratio  of 
her  population  to  that  of  Georgia.  And,  upon  this  basis,  she 
ought  to  have  48  instead  of  26,  so  that  she  is  realty  22  behind 
what  she  ought  to  have,  instead  of  being  13  ahead. 

But,  sir,  there  is  another  view  of  this  subject  that  the  gentle 
man  did  not  present,  but  which  is  one  much  more  interesting 
to  those  looking  after  mental  development  than  the  number  of 
colleges,  and  that  is,  the  number  of  pupils  or  students  at  them. 
Georgia,  at  her  13  colleges,  by  the  census,  has  1,535  pupils ;  and 
Ohio,  to  have  as  many,  in  proportion  to  her  population,  ought  to 
have  5,852,  but,  in  fact,  as  the  returns  show,  she  has  only  3,621. 
So,  here  again,  upon  the  basis  and  ratio  of  white  population,  she 
is  2,231  behind.  Georgia,  by  the  census,  has  one  pupil  at  college 
for  every  339  of  her  entire  white  population,  and  Ohio  has  only 
one  for  every  539  of  hers.  In  this  particular,  Georgia,  by  the 
census  returns,  is  not  only  ahead,  and  a  long  ways  ahead,  of  Ohio, 
but  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  of  any  and  every  other  State 
or  nation  in  the  civilized  world  !  This  I  will  set  down  as  a  legiti 
mate  "set-off"  against  the  gentleman's  array  of  those  who  cannot 
read  and  write  in  Georgia.  On  this  head  he  says,  that  Ohio  has 
but  one  to  every  twenty-nine  of  her  population  who  cannot  read 
and  write,  while  Georgia  has  one  to  every  twelve  of  hers.  I  shall 
not  dispute  the  returns  of  the  census  takers  on  this  head,  either 
in  Georgia  or  Ohio ;  but  there  is  one  singular  fact  about  it  which 
strikes  me  as  something  worthy  of  note,  and  that  is,  that  out  of 
the  foreign  population — alien  born — of  218,099,  in  Ohio,  there 
should  be  found  no  more  than  9,062  adults  who  cannot  read  and 
write.  If  this  be  true,  then  much  that  we  hear  said  of  the  isnor- 


454         SPEECH   IN   KEPLY  TO   MR.   CAMPBELL;    OF   OHIO. 

ance  and  want  of  intelligence  on  the  part  of  that  class  of  people, 
cannot  be  well  founded. 

But  I  have  this  to  say  of  this  showing  against  Georgia :  Much  of  it 
is  owing  to  some  important  facts  in  her  history.  Georgia,  it  is  true,, 
as  the  gentleman  says,  was  one  of  the  old  thirteen  States ;  but,  in 
point  of  settlement,  she  should  be  ranked  junior  to  several  of  the 
new  States,  particularly  Ohio :  It  has  not  been  twenty  years  since 
she  got  possession  of  her  entire  territory.  And  for  forty  years 
after  independence  was  declared,  she  had  possession  of  but  little 
over  half  of  it.  It  was  held  by  the  aborigines,  while  the  Indian 
title  to  at  least  two  thirds  of  the  Ohio  territory — if  I  am  not 
mistaken — was  extinguished  by  the  treaty  of  Greenville,  in  1195. 
Ohio  was  admitted  as  a  State  in  1802 ;  and,  as  early  as  181*7,  the 
Indian  title  was  extinguished  throughout  her  territory,  with  the 
exception  of  some  small  reservations.  It  was  not  until  1838 — 
more  than  twenty  years  afterward — that  the  Indians  were  re 
moved  from  that  large  and  fertile  section  of  our  State  known  as 
the  Cherokee  country.  This  is  now,  by  far,  the  most  densely 
populated  of  any  part  of  the  State.  The  policy  of  Georgia  in 
lettering  off  her  lands  in  small  tracts  of  202  J,  and  160,  and  40 
acres  each,  without  any  price,  except  the  grant  fees,  naturally 
induced  the  landless,  and  the  most  indigent,  whose  means  for 
education  in  early  life  had  been  most  limited,  in  the  neighboring, 
and  even  distant,  States,  to  look  to  her  cheap  domain  for  homes 
whenever  any  portion  of  it  was  expected  to  be  opened  for  settle 
ment.  Many  of  these  pioneers,  uneducated  themselves,  went  into 
the  woods,  with  hardly  any  thing  save  a  horse  and  a  cart,  an  axe 
and  a  gun,  a  wife  and,  perhaps,  not  a  few  "  little  ones."  Without 
convenient  schools  for  several  years,  the  older  members  of  the 
rising  families  grew  up  as  their  fathers  had  done.  Amongst  this 
class  is  to  be  found  much  the  greater  number  of  those  adults 
amongst  us  who  can  neither  read  nor  write ;  but,  with  industry 
and  frugality,  where  labor  meets  with  the  returns  it  does  with  us, 
competency  and  comforts  soon  followed.  Then  came  "men  ser 
vants  and  maid  servants ;"  and  then,  also,  commenced  that 
physical  development  which  it  is  my  pride  here  to-day  to  exhibit 
in  such  a  high  degree  of  prosperity ;  and,  what  to  me  is  a  source 
of  still  more  pride  and  gratification  in  contemplating  the  working 
of  our  institutions,  is,  that  many  of  that  great  number  of  students, 
both  male  and  female,  who  now  crowd  our  colleges  and  halls  of 
learning,  with  such  distinguishing  honor  to  the  State,  are  the 
younger  sons  and  daughters  of  parents  who,  thirty  and  forty 
years  ago,  commenced  life's  career  in  our  then  wilderness,  poor, 
illiterate,  and  destitute,  as  I  have  described.  Moreover,  Georgia 
has  never  received  any  aid  from  this  government  for  educational 
purposes.  Ohio  has  received  69,120  acres  of  land  for  colleges, 
which,  at  government  prices,  is  $86,400.  She  has,  besides,  re 
ceived,  for  common  schools,  704,488  acres  of  land,  which,  at  the 
same  estimated  rates,  makes  more  than  $800,000.  And,  for 


SPEECH   IN   EEPLY   TO   MB.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         155 

internal  improvements,  she  has  received  1,050,287  acres  more. 
And  to  this  may  also  be  added  over  half  a  million  of  dollars  she 
has  received  as  a  percentage  on  the  amount  of  land  sales  in  her 
limits.  Georgia  has  been  your  benefactor  to  the  amount  of 
millions  in  the  grant  of  public  domain,  but  the  recipient  of  none 
of  these  favors.  She  made  herself  what  she  is  by  her  own  exer 
tions,  energy,  and  enterprise. 

But,  sir,  I  pass  on  to  churches.  The  gentleman  gives  us  this 
table  : 

No.  of  Churches.      Accommodation.  Value.  Average  Value. 

Ohio 3,936  1,457,294  $5,793,099  $1,471 

Georgia 1,862  627,197  1,269,359  679 

Ohio  ahead.. 2.074  830,097  $4,523,740  $792 

Here  the  gentleman  again,  as  usual  with  him,  sets  down  Ohio 
as  ahead!  But  let  us  see  if  such  be  the  fact.  Ohio  has  more 
churches,  it  is  true,  and  ought  to  have,  for  she  has  more  people. 
But  how  does  the  number  of  churches  stand  in  proportion  to  the 
population  in  each  State  ?  By  the  census,  the  church  accommo 
dation  in  each  is  as  follows  :  Georgia  2.05  to  every  1,000  popu 
lation  ;  Ohio  1.99  to  every  1,000  population ;  that  is,  Georgia  has 
over  two  churches  to  every  one  thousand  of  her  entire  population, 
white  and  black,  while  Ohio  has  less  than  two  to  the  same  portion 
of  her  population.  To  have  her  full,ratio  of  churches,  according  to 
population,  to  be  equal  to  Georgia,  Ohio  ought  to  have  4,059,  in 
stead  of  3,936.  So  that,  so  far  from  being  two  thousand  and  seventy- 
four  ahead,  as  the  gentleman  says,  she  is  really,  and  in  fact,  123  be 
hind^  It  is  true  that  Ohio  buildings  are  estimated  at  a  higher 
cost  or  value  than  those  in  Georgia  ;  and  this  may  be  according 
to  the  fact.  But  with  us  we  do  not  look  so  much  to  the  splendor  of 
architecture,  or  the  outward  appearance  of  our  temples  of  wor 
ship,  as  we  do  to  having  a  house  of  some  sort  where  the  people 
of  all  classes,  including  the  "poor,"  yea  even  the  "slave,"  may 
have  "  the  gospel  preached  to  them." 

Now,  sir,  as  the  gentleman  has  seen  fit  to  leave  the  original  is 
sue  of  the  comparative  agricultural  developments  of  the  two 
States,  and  has  given  us  statistics  on  other  matters,  I  will  follow 
his  example,  and  call  attention  to  one  or  two  other  subjects 
which  will  throw  some  light  upon  the  workings  of  their  respec 
tive  social  systems.  The  exhibition  of  churches  is  only  one  side  of 
the  moral  picture.  Let  us  turn  it  and  look  at  the  other.  How 
stands  the  lists  of  crimes  in  these  States  ?  By  the  census,  in 
Georgia,  during  the  year  for  which  the  returns  were  taken,  there 
were  but  80  criminal  convictions  in  the  whole  State,  while  in 
Ohio  there  were  843 !  There  were  in  Georgia,  in  the  peniten 
tiary,  89  convicts ;  in  Ohio  there  were  406  ;  and  of  these  406 
then  in  prison  for  crime  in  Ohio,  44  of  them  were  blacks !  Forty- 
four  out  of  a  free  black  population  of  25,279  !  This  is  a  most 


456         SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO. 

striking  fact,  showing  the  immorality  of  that  particular  class  of 
people,  as  well  as  their  degradation.  If  crime  existed  in  the  same 
ratio  amongst  the  whites  in  that  State,  there  would  be  over  three 
thousand  of  them  in  the  State  prison  !  The  gentleman  spoke  of 
"carrying  the  war  into  Africa."  I  thought  that  was  the  last 
place  he  would  be  disposed  to  carry  it,  as  the  sable  sons  of  that 
umbrtunate  land  seem  to  be  his  especial  favorites.  But  as  he 
has  carried  it  there,  it  is  but  proper  that  the  result  should  be  duly 
chronicled. 

Again,  the  general  condition  of  a  people  is,  to  some  extent,  in 
dicated  by  the  amount  of  want  and  destitution  amongst  them. 
On  this  head,  comparing  Georgia  with  Ohio,  the  census  presents 
the  following  results : 

Paupers.  Annual  cost  of  support. 

Georgia 1,036  27,820 

Ohio 2,513  95,250 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  my  time  is  nearly  out.  There  are  many 
other  matters,  I  did  wish  to  allude  to,  which  I  must  pass  over 
and  omit.  I  wanted  to  say  something  about  the  present  condi 
tion  of  things  in  some  of  the  Northern  States,  particularly  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  where  it  is  now  found  that  there  is,  after  all, 
something  in  life  worse  than  being  required,  or  even  made  to 
work.  This  is  the  great  evil  the  negro  in  the  South  is  subjected 
to,  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  rail  so  much  against  our  social 
system.  But  that  greater  evil  which  is  now  felt  in  New  York,  is 
the  want  of  work  to  do,  by  which  means  may  be  earned  to  keep 
from  starving.  "  Hunger  is  a  sharp  thorn"  was,  a  few  days  ago, 
the  banner  motto,  borne  by  thousands  in  that  great  mercantile 
metropolis.  Under  our  system,  sir,  we  never  have  such  sq§nes. 
We  have,  it  is  true,  our  afflictions  of  diseases,  and  epidemics,  and 
disasters  of  drought,  floods,  and  hurricanes ;  but  the  wail  of 
thousands  crying  for  bread,  has  never  yet,  under  the  blessings  of 
heaven,  been  heard  in  our  land  of  sunshine  and  plenty,  "cursed," 
though  it  be,  with  slavery  !  Even  the  curses  of  our  enemies  seem 
to  fall  as  blessings  on  our  heads.  We  have  a  "  Social  Provi 
dence,"  to  use  a  late  very  appropriate  designation  given  by  the 
New  York  Tribune,  which  prevents  all  this.  A  system  by  which 
capital,  accumulated  in  the  years  of  plenty,  is  required  to  sustain 
labor  in  the  years  of  want.  These  matters  I  wished  to  go  some 
what  into,  but  I  cannot.  But  enough  has  been  said  to  show  a 
development,  whether  considered  physically,  moralty,  socially,  or 
intellectually,  quite  sufficient  to  place  Georgia  (with  domestic 
institutions  as  much  abused  as  they  are  by  those  who  know  so 
little  about  them)  fully  alongside  of  Ohio,  "the  giant  of  the 
West,"  or  any  other  State  of  this  Union.  That  was  my  proposi 
tion,  and  I  think  I  have  made  it  good. 

I  want,  in  conclusion,  however,  to  say  a  few  things,  Mr. 
Chairman,  about  one  of  our  great  staples.  I  omitted  it  in  its 
proper  place,  but  it  will  do,  perhaps,  just  as  well  here.  I  mean 


SPEECH  IN   EEPLY   TO   MR.   CAMPBELL,    OF   OHIO.         457 

the  article  of  cotton ;  and  I  wish  to  say  what  I  do  on  that  sub 
ject,  from  the  fact  that  I  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  Ohio  hay 
crop  was  equal  to  the  Georgia  cotton  crop,  and  that  the  hay  crop 
of  the  United  States  annually  is  quite  equal  in  importance,  as  an 
agricultural  product,  to  this  great  southern,  or,  I  should  rather 
say,  national  staple.  Those  who  thus  think,  or  talk,  or  argue, 
take  a  very  narrow,  imperfect,  and  unphilosophical,  as  well  as 
unstatesmanlike  view  of  the  subject.  As  io>  the  mere  money 
value  of  this  article,  or  its  excess  in  value  over  the  other,  it  is 
not  my  purpose  to  speak ;  that — great  as,  in  fact,  it  is — is  a 
small  matter,  infinitely  small  when  placed  by  the  side  of  other 
larger  and  more  comprehensive  considerations  of  the  question. 
Some  things  have  values  extrinsic  as  well  as  intrinsic.  Cotton 
is  eminently  one  of  these.  Gold  and  silver  are  not  so  much  en 
titled  to  be  placed  on  the  list  of  such  things  as  it  is.  The  ex 
trinsic  value  of  these  metals  arises  from  their  agency  as  the 
adopted  representatives  of  all  values.  With  their  displacement, 
however,  many  substitutes  could  be  obtained.  But  what  substi 
tute  could  be  procured  for  the  agency  of  cotton  ? 

Let  us  look,  for  a  moment — and  I  have  but  a  moment  or  two 
left — into  some  of  the  relations  of  this  product  to  the  active  busi 
ness  operations  of  the  world.  To  illustrate,  I  will  state  simple 
facts.  These  facts  are  collected  from  the  very  able  report  I  hold 
in  my  hand.  It  was  made  by  Mr.  Andrews,  a  northern  man.  It 
is  Ex.  Doc.  No.  136,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.  Full  credit,  therefore, 
may  be  given  to  the  facts.  They  come  with  the  stamp  of  the 
highest  authority.  From  this  document  it  appears  that  the  cotton 
crop  of  this  country  gives  employment  to  at  least  120,000  tons 
of  inland  steam  tonnage,  and  1,000  persons  in  transporting  it  to 
points  for  shipment.  It  gives  employment  to  50,000  American 
seamen,  and  one  million  of  American  tonnage  in  its  coastwise 
shipment.  It  gives  employment  to  800,000  tons  of  American 
shipping,  and  40,000  American  seamen,  in  its  foreign  shipment. 
Twenty-five  thousand  other  persons,  at  least,  are  engaged  in  re 
ceiving  and  shipping  it.  It  gives  employment  to  at  least  100,000 
operatives  in  American  factories,  whose  annual  wages  are  over 
$1*7,000,000.  In  these  factories  there  are  invested  eighty  millions 
of  American  capital,  which  turn  out,  annually,  at  least  seventy 
millions  worth  of  products !  With  these  facts  before  him,  the 
writer  of  the  report  uses  this  language.  I  ask  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  it,  because  it  is  no  less  graphic  than  truthful : 

"  Every  interest  throughout  the  land — at  the  North  and  the  South,  in 
the  East  and  the  West,  in  the  interior,  and  on  the  Pacific  as  well  as  the 
Atlantic  coast — receives  from  it  (cotton)  active  and  material  aid.  It  pro 
motes,  essentially,  the  agricultural  interests  in  those  States  where  cotton 
is  not  produced.  It  is  the  main  source  of  the  prosperity  of  the  mechanic, 
the  artisan,  and  other  laboring  classes,  as  well  as  that  of  the  merchant, 
and  manufacturer  in  every  section  of  the  Union.  Everywhere  it  has 
laid,  broad,  and  deep,  and  permanent,  the  foundations  of  the  wealth  and 


458        SPEECH  IN  REPLY   TO   ME.   CAMPBELL,   OF   OHIO. 

strength  of  the  United  States,  and  of  their  independence  of  foreign  nations. 
More  than  any  thing  else  has  this  product  made  other  nations,  even  the 
most  powerful*  dependent  on  the  '  United  States  of  America.'  More  than 
any  other  article,  nay,  more  than  all  other  agricultural  products  united, 
has  cotton  advanced  the  navigating  and  commercial  interests  of  the 
eastern  Atlantic  States,  and  of  the  whole  Union.  It,  more  than  any 
other  agricultural  product,  has  cherished  and  sustained  those  interests, 
not  merely  by  its  direct  contribution,  but  by  awakening  commerce  in 
other  countries,  from  which  they  have  received  profitable  employment. 
Neither  the  whale  fisheries,  nor  the  mackerel  and  cod  fisheries  have  been 
of  the  same  importance  and  value  to  those  interests  as  the  annual  cotton 
crop  of  the  United  States,  since  the  war  of  1812,  has  been,  for  its  trans 
portation  coastwise  and  exportation  to  foreign  countries.  Like  the  light 
and  heat  of  the  sun,  the  genial  effects  of  this  inestimable  blessing  which 
Providence  has  bestowed  upon  this  favored  people,  reach  every  portion 
of  the  land.  They  extend  to  every  city,  and  town,  and  village,  and  ham 
let,  and  farmhouse — to  the  ship,  to  the  steamboat,  to  the  canal  barge, 
and  to  the  railroad." 

Yes,  sir,  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  vast  Con 
federation  of  States,  there  is  not  a  tenement,  whether  cabin  or 
palace,  where  the  life-giving  and  life-sustaining  influence  of  this 
southern  product  is  not  felt  and  realized.  And  besides  this,  it 
may  be  added  that  the  same  article  gives  employment,  and  the 
means  of  supporting  human  life,  to  at  least  three  millions  of 
persons  in  Europe,  and  the  investment  of  at  least  three  hundred 
millions  of  their  capital !  Figures  almost  fail,  sir,  to  calculate 
the  extent  of  the  influence  of  this  article  upon  the  comfort,  the 
happiness  and  well  being  of  mankind.  The  one  sixth,  at  least, 
of  all  these  results  is  due  to  that  portion  of  this  product  contri 
buted  by  Georgia.  This  sketch  gives  us  but  a  slight  glance  at 
some  of  the  extrinsic  values  of  cotton,  to  which  the  money  value, 
to  the  grower,  great  as  it  is,  is  but  a  drop  in  the  ocean.  But 
who,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  and  these  grand  results,  can  be 
bold  enough  to  maintain  that  this  product  of  the  South,  in  value 
and  importance,  is  to  be  put  in  the  balance  and  weighed  down 
by  the  hay  crop  of  the  North?  Or,  that  the  cotton  crop  of 
Georgia,  that  contributes  one  sixth  of  all  these  results,  is,  in  like 
manner,  to  be  put  in  the  scales  against  the  hay  crop  of  Ohio  ? 
The  dried  grass,  the  cow  food,  that  sustains  life  for  a  season  in 
their  herds  of  cattle ;  though  they  were  countless  in  number ! 
The  subjects  hardly  allow  a  contrast,  much  less  a  comparison ; 
and  whoever  attempts  it,  does  injustice,  not  only  to  his  own  in 
telligence  as  a  statesman,  if  he  has  a  spark  of  it  about  him,  but  he 
does  gross  injustice  to  one  of  the  most  important  elements  of 
his  country's  greatness !  To  adopt  the  figure  of  the  author  of 
the  report  I  have  just  read  from,  we  might  much  better  compare 
the  lard  lamps,  or  wood  fires,  or  whatever  else  lights  up  the  dwel 
lings  of  tite  nineteen  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  of  that  State 
every  night,  to  the  full  blaze  of  the  "  glorious  king  of  day"  at 
noon  shedding  abroad,  not  only  light,  but  heat,  animation,  and 
life  upon  a  smiling  world  around  us. 


LETTER  ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  459 


LETTER   TO   JUDGE   THOMAS   W.  THOMAS,   ON   THE 
SUBJECT  OF  KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

ELBERTON,  GA.,  5th  MAY,  1855. 

HON.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  : 

DEAR  SIR  : — A  rumor  prevails  in  this  section,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  that  you  will  decline  to  serve  us  in  the  next  Congress,  and 
the  chief  reason  assigned  is,  that  it  is  supposed  a  large  number  of 
your  political  friends  have  gone  into  the  secret  order  called 
Know-Nothings.  Many  of  your  friends  desire  to  know  if  this 
rumor  be  true.  It  is  considered  an  important  period  in  our 
national  affairs,  and  your  retiring  at  this  time  would  be  felt  as  a 
loss  by  those  who  have  relied  on  you  through  so  many  trying 
scenes. 

What  are  your  opinions  and  views  of  this  new  party,  called 
Know-Nothings  ?  Knowing  your  willingness  to  give  your  opinion 
on  all  matters  of  public  concern,  I  am  induced  to  make  the  in 
quiry,  and  request  permission  to  publish  your  reply. 

Yours  truly, 

THOMAS  W.  THOMAS. 


CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  9th  MAY,  1855. 

DEAR  SIR  : — Your  letter  of  the  5th  inst.  was  received  some  days 
ago,  and  should  have  been  answered  much  earlier,  but  for  my 
absence  from  home.  The  rumor  you  mention  in  relation  to  my 
candidacy  for  re-election  to  Congress,  is  true.  I  have  stated, 
and  repeated  on  various  occasions,  that  I  was  not,  and  did  not 
expect  to  be,  a  candidate — the  same  I  now  say  to  you.  The  rea 
son  of  this  declaration  on  my  part,  was  the  fact,  that  large  num 
bers  of  our  old  political  friends  seemed  to  be  entering  into  new 
combinations  with  new  objects,  purposes,  and  principles  of  which 
I  was  not  informed,  and  never  could  be  according  to  the  rules  of 
their  action  and  the  opinions  I  entertain.  Hence  my  conclusion 
that  they  had  no  further  use  for  me  as  their  representative ;  for  I 
presumed  they  knew  enough  of  me  to  be  assured  if  they  had  any 
secret  aims  or  objects  to  accomplish  that  they  never  could  get  my 
consent,  even  if  they  desired  it,  to  become  a  dumb  instrument  to 
execute  such  a  purpose.  I  certainly  never  did,  and  never  shall, 
go  before  the  people  as  a  candidate  for  their  suffrages  with  my 
principles  in  my  pocket.  It  has  been  the  pride  of  my  life,  here 
tofore,  not  only  to  make  known  fully  and  freely  my  sentiments 
upon  all  questions  of  public  policy,  but  in  vindication  of  those 
sentiments  thus  avowed,  to  meet  any  antagonists  arrayed  against 
them,  in  open  and  manly  strife — "face  to  face  and  toe  to  toe." 
From  this  rule  of  action  by  which  I  have  up  to  this  time  been  gov 
erned,  I  shall  never  depart.  But  you  ask  me  what  are  my  opin 
ions  and  views  of  this  new  party  called  "  Know-Nothings, "  with 


4:60  LETTER    ON    KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

a  request  that  you  be  permitted  to  publish  them.  My  opinions 
and  views  thus  solicited,  shall  be  given  most  cheerfully,  and  as 
fully  and  clearly  as  my  time,  under  the  pressure  of  business,  will 
allow.  You  can  do  with  them  as  you  please — publish  them  or 
not,  as  you  like.  They  are  the  views  of  a  private  citizen.  I  am 
at  present,  to  all  intents  and  purposes  whatsoever,  literally  one 
of  the  people.  I  hold  no  office  nor  seek  any,  and  as  one  of  the 
people  I  shall  speak  to  you  and  them  on  this,  and  on  all  occasions, 
with  that  frankness  and  independence  which  it  becomes  a  freeman 
to  bear  towards  his  fellows.  And  in  giving  my  views  of  "  Know- 
Nothingism,"  I  most  truly  say,  that  I  really  "know  nothing" 
about  the  principles,  aims  or  objects  of  the  party  I  am  about  to 
speak  of — they  are  all  kept  secret — being  communicated  and  made 
known  only  to  the  initiated,  and  not  to  these  until  after  being  first 
duly  pledged  and  sworn.  This,  to  me,  is  a  very  great  objection 
to  the  whole  organization.  All  political  principles,  which  are 
sought  to  be  carried  out  in  legislation  by  any  body  or  set  of  men 
in  a  republic,  in  my  opinion  ought  to  be  openly  avowed  and  pub 
licly  proclaimed.  Truth  never  shuns  the  light  nor  shrinks  from 
investigation — or  at  least  it  ought  never  to  do  it.  Hiding  places, 
or  secret  coverts,  are  natural  resorts  for  error.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
circumstance  quite  sufficient  to  excite  suspicion  against  the  truth 
to  see  it  pursuing  such  a  course.  And  in  republics,  where  free 
discussion  and  full  investigation  by  a  virtuous  and  intelligent 
people  is  allowed,  there  never  can  be  any  just  grounds  to  fear  any 
danger  even  from  the  greatest  errors  either  in  religion  or  politics. 
All  questions,  therefore,  relating  to  the  government  of  a  free 
people,  ought  to  be  made  known,  clearly  understood,  fully  dis 
cussed,  and  understandingly  acted  upon.  Indeed,  I  do  not  believe 
that  a  republican  government  can  last  long,  where  this  is  not  the 
case.  In  my  opinion,  no  man  is  fit  to  represent  a  free  people 
who  has  any  private  or  secret  objects,  or  aims,  that  he  does  not 
openly  avow,  or  who  is  not  ready  and  willing,  at  all  times,  when 
required  or  asked,  candidly  and  truthfully,  to  proclaim  to  the 
assembled  multitude  not  only  his  principles,  but  his  views  and 
sentiments  upon  all  questions  that  may  come  before  him  in  his 
representative  capacity.  It  was  on  this  basis  that  representative 
government  was  founded,  and  on  this  alone  can  it  be  maintained 
in  purity  and  safety.  And  if  any  secret  party  shall  ever  be  so  far 
successful  in  this  country  as  to  bring  the  government  in  all  its 
departments  and  functions  under  the  baneful  influence  of  its  con 
trol  and  power,  political  ruin  will  inevitably  ensue.  No  truth  in 
politics  can  be  more  easily  and  firmly  established,  either  by  reason 
or  from  history,  upon  principle  or  authority,  than  this.  These  are 
my  opinions  candidly  expressed. 

I  know  that  many  good  and  true  men  in  Georgia  differ  from  me 
in  this  particular — thousands  of  them,  I  doubt  not,  have  joined 
this  secret  order  with  g'ood  intentions.  Some  of  them  have  told 
me  so,  ay  d  I  do  not  question  their  motives.  And  thousands  more 


LETTER   ON"   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  161 

will,  perhaps,  do  it  with  the  same  intentions  and  motives.  Should  it 
be  a  short-lived  affair,  no  harm  will,  or  may  come  of  it.  But  let  it  suc 
ceed — let  it  carry  all  the  elections,  State  and  federal — let  the  natural 
and  inevitable  laws  of  its  own  organism  be  once  fully  developed 
— and  the  country  will  go  by  the  board.  It  will  go  as  France  did. 
The  first  Jacobin  club  was  organized  in  Paris  on  the  6th  Novem 
ber,  1789,  under  the  alluring  name  of  "the  Friends  of  the  Consti 
tution,"  quite  as  specious  as  that  we  now  hear  of  "Americans 
shall  rule  America."  Many  of  the  best  men  and  truest  patriots 
in  Paris  joined  it — and  thousands  of  the  same  sort  of  men  joined 
the  affiliated  clubs  afterward — little  dreaming  of  the  deadly  fangs 
of  that  viper  they  were  nurturing  in  their  bosoms.  Many  of  these 
very  men  afterward  went  to  the  guillotine,  by  orders  passed  secretly 
in  these  very  clubs.  All  legislation  was  settled  in  the  clubs — mem 
bers  of  the  national  assembly  and  convention,  all  of  them,  or  most 
of  them,  were  members  of  the  clubs,  for  they  could  not  otherwise 
be  elected.  And  after  the  question  was  settled  in  the  clubs,  the 
members  next  day  went  to  the  nominal  halls  of  legislation  nothing 
but  trembling  automatons,  to  register  the  edicts  of  the  "  order," 
though  it  were  to  behead  a  monarch,  or  to  cause  the  blood  of  the 
best  of  their  own  number  to  flow  beneath  the  stroke  of  the  axe.  Is 
history  of  no  use  ?  Or  do  our  people  vainly  imagine  that  Americans 
would  not  do  as  the  French  did  under  like  circumstances  ?  "Is  thy 
servant  a  dog  that  he  should  do  this  thing?"  said  the  haughty,  self- 
confident  Hazael.  Yet,  he  did  all  that  he  had  been  told  that  he 
would  do.  "  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he 
fall."  Human  nature  is  the  same  compound  of  weak  frailties  and 
erring  passions  everywhere.  Of  these  clubs  in  France,  an  elegant 
writer  has  said : 

"  From  all  other  scourges  which  had  afflicted  mankind,  in  every 
age  and  in  every  nation,  there  had  been  some  temporary  refuge, 
some  shelter  until  the  storm  might  pass.  During  the  heathenism 
of  antiquity,  and  the  barbarism  of  the  middle  ages,  the  temple  of 
a  god  or  the  shrine  of  a  saint,  afforded  a  refuge  from  despotic 
fury  or  popular  rage.  But  French  Jacobins,  whether  native  or 
adopted,  treated  with  equal  scorn,  the  sentiments  of  religion  and 
the  feeling  of  humanity ;  and  all  that  man  had  gathered  from  his 
experience  upon  earth,  and  the  revelations  he  hoped  had  been 
made  him  from  the  sky,  to  bless  and  adorn  his  mortal  existence, 
and  elevate  his  soul  with  immortal  aspirations,  were  spurned  as 
imposture  by  these  fell  destroyers.  They  would  have  depraved 
man  from  his  humanity,  as  they  attempted  to  decree  God  out  of 
his  universe.  Not  contented  with  France  as  subject  for  their 
ruthless  experiments — Europe  itself  being  too  narrow  for  their 
exploits,  they  send  their  propagandists  to  the  new  world,  with 
designs  about  as  charitable  as  those  with  which  Satan  entered 
Eden." 

This  is  but  a  faint  picture  of  some  of  the  scenes  enacted  by  that 
self-same  party,  which  was  at  first  formed  by  those  who  styled 


462  LETTER   ON"   KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

themselves  "  The  Friends  of  the  Constitution."  And  where  did 
these  "  secret  Councils  "  we  now  hear  of,  come  from  ?  Not  from 
France,  it  is  true — but  from  the  land  of  isms,  where  the  people 
would  have  gone  into  anarchy  long  ago,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
conservative  influence  of  the  more  stable  minded  men  of  the  South  ? 
And  what  scene  have  we  lately  witnessed  in  the  Massachusetts 
legislature,  where  the  new  political  organism  has  more  fully  de 
veloped  itself  than  anywhere  else.  What  are  its  fruits  there? 
Under  the  name  of  "  The  American  Party,"  they  have  armed  them 
selves  against  the  constitution  of  our  common  country  which  the}7 
were  sworn  to  support — with  every  member  of  the  Legislature,  I 
believe,  save  eight,  belonging  to  "  the  order,"  they  have,  by  an  over 
whelming  majority  vote,  deposed  Judge  Loring,  for  nothing  but 
the  discharge  of  his  official  duty,  in  issuing  a  warrant  as  United 
States  commissioner,  to  cause  the  arrest  of  the  fugitive  slave, 
Burns.  In  reviewing  this  most  unheard-of  outrage  upon  the  con 
stitution,  the  National  Intelligencer,  at  Washington,  says  it  "shud 
ders  for  the  judiciary."  And  if  they  go  on  as  they  have,  well  may 
the  country  "  shudder,"  not  only  for  the  judiciary,  but  for  every 
thing  else  we  hold  most  sacred.  "  If  these  things  be  done  in  the 
green  tree,  what  may  you  expect  in  the  dry." 

But  I  have  been  anticipating  somewhat.  I  was  on  the  prelimi 
nary  question ;  that  is,  the  secresy  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  party — that  atmosphere  of  darkness  in  which  "it  lives,  and 
moves,  and  has  its  being,"  and  without  which  probably  it  could 
not  exist.  I  do  not,  however,  intend  to  stop  with  that.  I  will  go 
further,  and  give,  now,  my  opinions  upon  those  questions  which 
are  said  to  be  within  the  range  of  its  secret  objects  and  aims.  The 
principles,  as  published,  (or  those  principles  which  are  attributed 
to  the  order,  though  no  body  as  an  organized  party  avow  them,) 
have,  as  I  understand  them,  two  leading  ideas,  and  two  only. 
These  are  a  proscription  by  an  exclusion  from  office  of  all  Catho 
lics  as  a  class ;  and  a  proscription  of  all  persons  of  foreign  birth 
as  a  class  ;  the  latter  to  be  accomplished  not  only  by  an  exclusion 
from  office  of  all  foreigners  who  are  now  citizens  by  naturalization, 
but  to  be  more  effectually  carried  out,  by  an  abrogation  of  the 
naturalization  law  for  the  future,  or  such  an  amendment  as  would 
be  virtually  tantamount  to  it.  These,  as  we  are  told,  are  the  great 
ostensible  objects  for  all  this  machinery — these  oaths — pledges — 
secret  signs — equivocations — denials,  and  what  not.  And  what  I 
have  to  say  of  them,  is,  that  if  these  in  deed  and  in  truth  be  the 
principles  thus  attempted  to  be  carried  out,  then  I  am  opposed  to 
both  of  them,  openly  and  unqualifiedly. 

I  am  opposed  to  them  "in  a  double  aspect,"  both  as  a  basis  ol 
party  organization,  and  upon  their  merits  as  questions  of  public 
policy.  As  the  basis  of  party  organization,  they  are  founded  upon 
the  very  erroneous  principle  of  looking,  not  to  how  the  country 
shall  be  governed,  but  who  shall  hold  the  offices — not  to  whether 
we  shall  have  wise  and  wholesome  laws,  but  who  shall  "rule  us," 


LETTEE   ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  463 

though  they  may  bring  ruin  with  their  rule.  Upon  this  principle, 
Trumbull,  who  defeated  General  Shields  for  the  Senate  in  Illinois, 
can  be  as  good  a  "  Know-Nothing  "  as  any  man  in  the  late  "  Macon 
council,"  though  he  may  vote,  as  he  doubtless  will,  to  repeal  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law,  and  against  the  admission  of  any  slave  State 
in  the  Union ;  while  Shields,  wrho  has  ever  stood  by  the  consti 
tution,  must  be  rejected  by  southern  men  because  he  was  not  born 
in  the  country.  Upon  this  principle,  a  Boston  atheist,  who  denies 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  because  it  sanctions  slavery,  is  to  be 
sustained  by  Georgia  "  Know-Nothings"  in  preference  to  me, 
barely  because  I  will  not  "bow  the  knee  to  Baal,"  this  false  polit 
ical  god  they  have  set  up.  The  only  correct  basis  of  party  organ 
ization  is  an  agreement  amongst  those  who  enter  into  it  upon  the 
paramount  question  of  the  day.  And  no  party  can  last  long 
without  bringing  disaster  and  ruin  in  its  train,  founded  upon  any 
other  principle.  The  old  national  whig  party  tried  the  experiment, 
when  there  were  radical  differences  of  opinion  on  such  questions, 
and  went  to  pieces.  The  national  democratic  party  are  now  trying 
a  similar  experiment,  and  are  experiencing  a  similar  fate.  This  is 
what  is  the  matter  with  it.  Its  vital  functions  are  deranged — 
hence  that  disease  which  now  afflicts  it  worse  than  the  "  dry  rot." 
And  what  we  of  the  South  now  should  do,  is  not  to  go  into  any 
"  Know-Nothing"  mummery  or  mischief,  as  it  may  be,  but  to  stand 
firmly  by  those  men  at  the  North  who  are  true  to  the  constitution 
and  the  Union,  without  regard  either  to  their  birth-place  or  reli 
gion.  The  question  we  should  consider  is  not  simply  who 
"  shall  rule  America,"  but  who  will  vote  for  such  measures  as  will 
best  promote  the  interests  of  America,  and  with  that  the  interests 
of  mankind. 

But  to  pass  to  the  other  view  of  these  principles — that  is,  the 
consideration  of  them  as  questions  of  public  policy.  With  me, 
they  both  stand  in  no  better  light  in  this  aspect  than  they  do  in 
the  other.  The  first  assumes  temporal  jurisdiction  in  "forum 
con  scientist" — to  which  I  am  quite  as  much  opposed  as  I  am  to 
the  spiritual  powers  controlling  the  temporal.  One  is  as  bad  as 
the  other — both  are  bad.  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  mingling  reli 
gion  with  politics  in  any  way.  whatever ;  and  especially  am  I  op 
posed  to  making  it  a  test  in  qualifications  for  civil  office.  Religion 
is  a  matter  between  a  man  and  his  Creator,  with  which  governments 
should  have  nothing  to  do.  In  this  country  the  constitution  guar 
antees  to  every  citizen  the  right  to  entertain  whatever  creed  he 
pleases,  or  no  creed  at  all  if  he  is  so  inclined ;  and  no  other  man  has 
a  right  to  pry  into  his  conscience  to  inquire  what  he  believes  or 
what  he  does  not  believe.  As  a  citizen  and  as  a  member  of  society, 
he  is  to  be  judged  by  his  acts,  and  not  by  his  creed.  A  Catholic, 
therefore,  in  our  country,  and  in  all  countries,  ought,,  as  all  other 
citizens,  to  be  permitted  to  stand  or  fall  in  public  favor  and  esti 
mation  upon  his  own  individual  merit.  "  Every  tub  should  stand 
upon  its  own  bottom." 


464  LETTER   ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

But  I  think  of  all  the  Christian  denominations  in  the  United 
States,  the  Catholics  are  the  last  that  southern  people  should  join 
in  attempting  to  put  under  the  ban  of  civil  proscription.  Eor  as 
a  church  they  have  never  warred  against  us  or  our  peculiar  insti 
tutions.  No  man  can  say  as  much  of  New  England  Baptists, 
Presbyterians,  or  Methodists ;  the  long  roll  of  abolition  petitions 
with  which  Congress  has  been  so  much  excited  and  agitated  for 
years  past,  come  not  from  the  Catholics  ;  their  pulpits  at  the  north 
are  not  desecrated  every  Sabbath  with  anathemas  against  slavery. 
And  of  the  three  thousand  New  England  clergymen  who  sent  the 
anti-Nebraska  memorial  to  the  Senate  last  year,  not  one  was  a 
Catholic,  as  I  have  been  informed  and  believe.  Why  then  should 
we  southern  men  join  the  Puritans  of  the  North  to  proscribe  from 
office  the  Catholics  on  account  of  their  religion  ?  Let  them  and 
their  religion  be  as  bad  as  they  can  be,  or  as  their  accusers  say 
they  are,  they  cannot  be  worse  than  these  same  puritanical  ac 
cusers,  who  started  this  persecution  against  them,  say  that  we  are. 
They  say  we  are  going  to  perdition  for  the  enormous  sin  of  hold 
ing  slaves.  The  Pope,  with  all  his  followers,  cannot,  I  suppose, 
even  in  their  judgment,  be  going  to  a  worse  place  for  holding  what 
they  consider  the  monstrous  absurdity  of  "  immaculate  conception." 
And,  for  my  part,  I  would  about  as  soon  risk  my  chance  for  heaven 
with  him,  and  his  crowd  too,  as  with  those  self-righteous  hypo 
crites  who  deal  out  fire  and  brimstone  so  liberally  upon  our  heads. 
At  any  rate,  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  declaring  that  I  should  much 
sooner  risk  my  civil  rights  with  the  American  Catholics,  whom 
they  are  attempting  to  drive  from  office,  than  with  them.  But,  sir, 
I  am  opposed  to  this  proscription  upon  principle.  If  it  is  once 
begun,  there  is  no  telling  where  it  will  end.  When  faction  once 
tastes  the  blood  of  a  victim,  it  seldom  ceases  its  ravages  among 
the  fold  so  long  as  a  single  remaining  one,  be  the  number  at  first 
ever  so  great,  is  left  surviving.  It  was  to  guard  against  any  such 
consequences  as  would  certainly  ensue  in  this  country,  if  this 
effort  at  proscription  of  this  sect  of  religionists  should  be  successful, 
that  wise  provision  to  which  I  have  alluded,  was  put  in  the  fun 
damental  law  of  the  Union.  And  to  maintain  it  intact,  in  letter 
and  spirit  with  steadfastness  at  this  time,  I  hold  to  be  a  most 
solemn  public  duty. 

And  now,  as  to  the  other  idea — the  proscription  of  foreigners — 
and  more  particularly  that  view  of  it  which  looks  to  the  denial  of 
citizenship  to  all  those  who  may  hereafter  seek  a  home  in  this 
country,  and  choose  to  cast  their  lots  and  destinies  with  us.  This 
is  a  favorite  idea  with  many  who  have  not  thought  of  its  effects, 
or  reflected  much  upon  its  consequences.  The  abrogation  of  the 
naturalization  laws  would  not  stop  immigration,  nor  would  the 
extension  of  the  term  of  probation,  to  the  period  of  twenty-one 
years,  do  it.  This  current  of  migration  from  east  to  west,  this 
exodus  of  the  excess  of  population  from  the  old  to  the  new  world, 
which  commenced  with  the  settlement  of  this  continent  by  Euro- 


LETTER  ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  i65 

peans,  would  still  go  on.  And  what  would  be  the  effect,  even 
under  the  most  modified  form  of  the  proposed  measure — that  is  of 
an  extension  of  the  period  from  five  to  twenty-one  years,  before 
citizenship  should  be  granted  ?  At  the  end  of  the  first  twenty-one 
years  from  the  commencement  of  the  operation  of  the  law,  we 
should  have  several  millions  of  people  in  our  midst — men  of  our 
own  race — occupying  the  unenviable  position  of  being  a  "  degraded 
caste  "  in  society,  a  species  of  serfs  without  the  just  franchise  of  a 
freeman  or  the  needful  protection  due  to  a  slave.  This  would  be 
at  war  with  all  my  ideas  of  American  republicanism  as  I  have  been 
taught  them,  and  gloried  in  them  from  youth  up.  If  there  be 
danger  now  to  our  institutions,  (as  some  seem  to  imagine,  but 
which  I  am  far  from  feeling  or  believing,)  from  foreigners  as  a 
class,  would  not  the  danger  be  greatly  enhanced  by  the  proposed 
remedy  ?  Now,  it  is  true,  they  are  made  to  bear  their  share  of  the 
burthens  of  government,  but  are  also  permitted,  after  a  residence 
of  five  years,  and  taking  an  oath  to  support  the  constitution,  to 
enjoy  their  just  participation  in  the  privileges,  honors,  and  immu 
nities  which  it  secures.  Would  they  be  less  likely  to  be  attached 
to  the  government  and  its  principles  under  the  operation  of  the 
present  system,  than  they  would  be  under  the  proposed  one  which 
would  treat  them  as  not  much  better  than  outcasts  and  outlaws  ? 
All  writers  of  note,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest,  who  have  treated 
upon  the  elements  and  component  parts,  or  members  of  commu 
nities  and  States,  have  pointed  this  out  as  a  source  of  real  danger — 
that  is,  having  a  large  number  of  the  same  race  not  only  aliens  by 
birth,  but  aliens  in  heart  and  feeling  in  the  bosom  of  society. 

Such  was,  to  a  great  extent,  the  condition  of  the  Helots  in 
Greece — men  of  the  same  race  placed  in  an  inferior  position,  and 
forming  within  themselves  a  degraded  class.  I  wish  to  see  no 
such  state  of  things  in  this  country.  With  as  at  the  South,  it  is 
true  we  have  a  "  degraded  caste,"  but  it  is  of  a  race  fitted  by 
nature  for  their  subordinate  position.  The  negro,  with  us,  fills 
that  place  in  society  and  under  our  system  of  civilization  for  which 
he  was  designed  by  nature.  No  training  can  fit  him  for  either 
social  or  political  equality  with  his  superiors ;  at  least  history 
furnishes  us  with  no  instance  of  the  kind ;  nor  does  the  negro 
with  us  feel  any  degradation  in  his  position,  because  it  is  his 
natural  place.  But  such  would  be  the  case  with  men  of  the  same 
race  and  coming  from  the  same  stock  as  ourselves.  And  what 
appears  not  a  little  strange  and  singular  to  me  in  considering 
this  late  movement  is,  that  if  it  did  not  originate  with,  yet  it  is 
now  so  generally  and  zealously  favored  by  so  many  of  those  men 
at  the  North  who  have  expended  so  much  of  their  misguided 
philanthropy  in  behalf  of  our  slaves.  They  have  been  endeavor 
ing  for  years  to  elevate  the  African  to  equality,  socially  and  politi 
cally,  with  the  white  man.  And  now,  they  are  moving  heaven  and 
earth  to  degrade  the  white  man  to  a  condition  lower  than  that  held 
by  the  negro  in  the  South.  The  Massachusetts  "  Know-Nothing" 
30 


466  LETTER  ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

Legislature  passed  a  bill  lately  to  amend  their  constitution,  so 
as  to  exclude  from  the  polls  in  that  State  hereafter  all  naturalized 
citizens,  from  whatever  nation  they  may  come ;  and  yet  they  will 
allow  a  runaway  negro  slave  from  the  South  the  same  right  to 
vote  that  they  give  to  their  own  native  born  sons !  They  thus 
exhibit  the  strange  paradox  of  warring  against  their  own  race — 
their  own  blood — even  their  own  "  kith  and  kin,"  it  may  be,  while 
they  are  vainly  and  fanatically  endeavoring  to  reverse  the  order 
of  nature,  by  making  the  black  man  equal  to  the  white.  Shall  we 
second  them  in  any  such  movement  ?  Shall  we  even  countenance 
them  so  far  as  to  bear  the  same  name — to  say  nothing  of  the  same 
pledges,  pass-words,  signs  and  symbols  ?  'Shall  we  affiliate  and 
unite  ourselves  under  the  same  banner,  with  men  whose  acts  show 
them  to  be  governed  by  such  principles,  and  to  be  bent  upon  such 
a  purpose  ?  This  is  a  question  for  southern  men  to  consider. 
Others  may  do  it  if  they  choose ;  but,  I  tell  you,  I  never  shall ; 
that  you  may  set  down  as  a  "fixed  fact" — one  of  the  fixedest  of 
the  fixed.  I  am  not  at  all  astonished  at  the  rapid  spread  of  this 
new  sentiment  at  the  North,  or,  rather,  new  way  of  giving  em 
bodiment  and  life  to  an  old  sentiment,  long  cherished  by  a  large 
class  of  the  northern  people,  notwithstanding  the  paradox.  It 
is  true  "  Know-Nothingism"  did  not  originate,  as  I  understand  its 
origin,  with  the  class  I  allude  to.  It  commenced  with  the  laborers 
and  men  dependent  upon  capital  for  work  and  employment.  It 
sprang  from  the  antagonism  of  their  interests  to  foreigners  seek 
ing  like  employments,  who  were  under-bidding  them  in  the  amount 
of  wages.  But  money  capitalists  of  that  section,  the  men  who 
hold  the  land  and  property  in  tl^eir  own  hands,  wishing  to  dis 
pense  with  laborers  and  employees,  whose  votes  at  the  polls  are 
equal  to  their  own,  seized  upon  this  new  way  of  effecting  their 
old,  long-cherished  desire — and  the  more  eagerly  as  they  saw 
that  many  of  the  very  men  whom  they  have  ever  dreaded  as  the 
insuperable  obstacle  between  them  and  their  purpose  had  become 
the  willing,  though  unconscious  instruments  of  carrying  that 
purpose  out,  which,  from  the  beginning,  was  a  desire  to  have  a 
votingless  population  to  do  their  work,  and  perform  all  the  labor, 
both  in  city,  town  and  country,  which  capital  may  require.  And 
as  certainly  as  such  a  law  shall  be  passed,  so  far  from  its  check 
ing  immigration,  there  will  be  whole  cargoes  of  people  from  other 
countries  brought  over,  and  literally  bought  up  in  foreign  ports, 
to  be  brought  over  in  American  ships  to  supply  the  market  for 
the  labor  throughout  all  the  free  States  of  the  Union.  The  Afri 
can  slave  tr.ade,  if  reopened,  would  not  exhibit  a  worse  spectacle 
-in  trafficking  in  human  flesh.  And  those  most  deluded  men  of  the 
North  who  started  this  thing,  and  who  are  now  aiding  to  accom 
plish  the  end,  may  find  they  have  but  kindled  a  flame  to  con 
sume  themselves.  The  whole  sub  stratum  of  northern  society  will 
soon  be  filled  up  with  a  class  who  can  work,  and  who,  though 
white  cannot  vote.  This  is  what  the  would-be  lords  of  that  sec- 


LETTER   ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  467 

tion  have  been  wanting  for  a  long  time.  It  is  a  scheme  with 
many  of  them  to  get  white  slaves  instead  of  black  ones.  No 
American  laborer,  or  man  seeking  employment  there,  who  has  a 
vote,  need  to  expect  to  be  retained  long  when  his  place  can  be 
more  cheaply  filled  by  a  foreigner  who  has  none.  This  will  be 
the  practical  working  of  the  proposed  reformation.  This  is  the 
philosophy  of  the  thing.  It  is  a  blow  at  the  ballot  box.  It  is  an 
insidious  attack  upon  general  suffrage.  In  a  line  with  this  policy, 
the  "Know-Nothing"  governor  of  Connecticut  has  already  re 
commended  the  passage  of  a  law  denying  the  right  of  voting  to 
all  who  cannot  read  and  write.  And  hence  the  great  efforts 
which  are  now  being  made  throughout  the  North,  to  influence  the 
elections,  not  only  there,  but  in  spending  their  money  in  the  pub 
lication  of  books  and  tracts,  written  by  "  nobody  knows  who," 
and  scattered  broadcast  throughout  the  southern  States,  to  in 
fluence  elections  here  by  appealing  to  the  worst  passions  and 
strongest  prejudices  of  our  nature,  not  omitting  those  even  which 
bad  and  wicked  men  can  evoke  under  the  sacred  but  prostituted 
name  of  religion. 

Unfortunately  for  the  country,  many  evils,  which  all  good  men 
regret  and  deplore,  exist  at  this  time,  which  have  a  direct  ten 
dency  wonderfully  to  aid  and  move  forward  this  ill  omened  cru 
sade.  These  relate  to  the  appointment  of  so  many  foreigners — 
wholly  unfit,  not  only  to  minor  offices  at  home,  but  to  represent 
our  country  as  ministers  abroad.  And  to  the  great  frauds  and 
gross  abuses  which  at  present  attend  the  administration  of  our 
naturalization  laws — these  are  the  evils  felt  by  the  whole  country, 
and  they  ought  to  be  corrected.  Not  by  &  proscription  of  all  foreign 
ers,  without  regard  to  individual  merits ;  but,  in  the  first  place, 
by  so  amending  the  naturalization  laws  as  effectually  to  check 
by  holding  to  strict  accountability  at  the  polls  in  our  elections 
and  prevent  these  frauds  and  abuses,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
all  those  public  functionaries,  who,  either  with  partisan  views  or 
from  whatever  motive,  thus  improperly  confer  office,  whether  high 
or  low,  upon  undeserving  foreigners,  to  the  exclusion  of  native- 
born  citizens  better  qualified  to  fill  them.  Another  evil  now  felt, 
which  ought  to  be  remedied,  is  the  flooding,  it  is  said,  of  some  of 
the  cities  with  paupers  and  convicts  from  other  countries.  These 
ought  all  to  be  unconditionally  excluded  and  prohibited  from 
coming  amongst  us.  TJJiere  is  no  reason  why  we  should  be  the 
feeders  of  other  nations'  paupers,  or  either  the  keepers  or  execu 
tioners  of  their  felons — these  evils  can  and  ought  to  be  remedied 
without  resorting  to  an  indiscriminate  onslaught  upon  all  who  by 
industry,  enterprise  and  merit  may  choose  to"  better  their  condi 
tion  in  abandoning  the  respective  dynasties  of  the  old  world  in 
which  they  may  have  chanced  to  have  been  born,  and  by  uniting 
their  energies  with  ours,  may  feel  a  pride  in  advancing  the  pros 
perity,  development  and  progress  of  a  common  country  not  much 
less  dear  to  them  than  to  us.  Against  those  who  thus  worthily 


4:68  LETTER   ON    KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

come,  who  quit  the  misruled  empires  of  their  "fatherland,"  whose 
hearts  have  been  fired  with  the  love  of  our  ideas  and  our  insti 
tutions,  even  in  distant  climes,  I  would  not  close  the  door  of 
admission.  But  to  all  such  as  our  fathers  did  at  first,  so  I  would 
continue  most  freely  and  generously  to  extend  a  welcome  hand. 
We  have,  from  such  a  class,  nothing  to  fear.  When,  in  battle  or 
in  the  walks  of  civil  life,  did  any  such  ever  prove  traitor  or  recreant 
to  the  flag  or  cause  of  his  country  ?  On  what  occasion  have  any 
such  ever  proven  untrue  or  disloyal  to  the  constitution  ? 

I  will  not  say  that  no  foreigner  has  ever  been  untrue  to  the 
constitution ;  but,  as  a  class,  they  certainly  have  not  proven  them 
selves  so  to  be.  Indeed,  I  know  of  but  one  class  of  people  in  the 
United  States  at  this  time  that  I  look  upon  as  dangerous  to  the 
country.  That  class  are  neither  foreigners  or  Catholics — they 
are  those  natives  born  at  the  North  who  are  disloyal  to  the 
constitution  of  that  country  which  gave  them  birth,  and  under 
whose  beneficent  institutions  they  have  been  reared  and  nurtured. 
Many  of  them  are  "Know-Nothings."  This  class  of  men  at  the 
North,  of  which  the  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire  and  Con 
necticut  "  Know-Nothing"  legislatures  are  but  samples,  I  consider 
as  our  worst  enemies.  And  to  put  them  down,  I  will  join,  as 
political  allies  now  and  forever,  all  true  patriots  at  the  North  and 
South,  whether  native  or  adopted,  Jews  or  Gentiles. 

What  our  Georgia  friends,  whether  whigs  or  democrats,  who  have 
gone  into  this  "  new  order,"  are  really  after,  or  what  they  intend 
to  do,  I  cannot  imagine.  Those  of  them  whom  I  know,  have  assured 
me  that  their  object  is  reform,  both  in  our  State  and  federal 
administrations — to  put  better  and  truer  men  in  the  places  -of 
those  who  now  wield  authority — that  they  have  no  sympathies  as 
party  men  or  otherwise  with  that  class  I  speak  of  at  the  North, 
that  they  are  for  sustaining  the  Union  platform  of  our  State  of 
1850,  and  that  the  mask  of  secrecy  will  soon  be  removed  when 
all  will  be  made  public.  If  these  be  their  objects,  and  also  to 
check  the  frauds  and  correct  the  abuses  in  the  existing  naturaliza 
tion  laws,  which  I  have  mentioned,  without  the  indiscriminate 
proscription  of  any  class  of  citizens  on  account  of  their  birth 
place  or  religion,  then  they  will  have  my  co-operation,  as  I  have 
told  them,  in  every  proper  and  legitimate  way,  to  effect  such  a 
reformation — not  as  a  secretly  initiated  co-worker  in  the  dark  for 
any  purpose,  but  as  an  open  and  bold^,dvocate  of  truth  in  the 
light  of  day.  But  will  they  do  as  they  say  ?  Will  they  throw  off 
the  mask?  That  is  the  question.  Is  it  possible  that  they 
will  continue  in  political  party  fellowship  with  their  "  worthy 
brethren"  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  and 
the  entire  North  ?  Every  one  of  whom  elected  to  the  next  Con 
gress  is  our  deadly  foe  I  Do  they  intend  to  continue  their  alli 
ance  with  these  open  enemies  of  our  institutions  and  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  country  under  the  totally  misnamed  association  of  the 


LETTER  ON   KNOW-NOTHLNTGISM.  469 

"American  party,"  the  very  principle  upon  which  it  is  based 
being  anti-American  throughout  ? 

True  Americanism,  as  I  have  learned  it,  is  like  true  Christianity 
— disciples  in  neither  are  confined  to  any  nation,  clime,  or  soil 
whatsoever.  Americanism  is  not  the  product  of  the  soil ;  it 
springs  not  from  the  land  or  the  ground  ;  it  is  not  of  the  earth,  or 
earthy;  it  emanates  from  the  head  and  the  heart;  it  looks  up 
ward,  and  onward  and  outward ;  its  life  and  soul  are  those  grand 
ideas  of  government  which  characterize  our  institutions,  and  dis 
tinguish  us  from  all  other  people ;  and  there  are  no  two  features 
in  our  system  which  so  signally  distinguish  us  from  all  other 
nations  as  free  toleration  of  religion  and  the  doctrine  of  expatria 
tion — the  right  of  a  man  to  throw  off  his  allegiance  to  any  and 
every  other  State,  prince  or  potentate  whatsoever,  and  by  naturali 
zation  to  be  incorporated  as  a  citizen  into  our  body  politic.  Both 
these  principles  are  specially  provided  for  and  firmly  established 
in  our  constitution.  But  these  American  ideas  which  were  pro 
claimed  in  1789  by  our  "  sires  of  16,"  are  by  their  "  sons  "  at  this  day 
derided  and  scoffed  at.  We  are  now  told  that  "  naturalization"  is 
a  "humbug,"  and  that  it  is  an  "impossibility."  So  did  not  our 
fathers  think.  This  "  humbug  "  and  "  impossibility  "  they  planted 
in  the  constitution ;  and  a  vindication  of  the  same  principle  was 
one  of  the  causes  of  our  second  war  of  independence.  England 
held  that  "  naturalization"  was  an  impossible  thing.  She  claimed 
the  allegiance  of  subjects  born  within  her  realm,  notwithstanding 
they  had  become  citizens  of  this  republic  by  our  constitution  and 
laws.  She  not  only  claimed  their  allegiance,  but  she  claimed  the 
right  to  search  our  ships  upon  the  high  seas,  and  take  from 
them  all  such  who  might  be  found  in  them.  It  was  in  pursuit  of 
this  doctrine  of  hers — of  the  right  of  search  for  our  "  naturalized  " 
citizens — that  the  Chesapeake  was  fired  into,  which  was  the  im 
mediate  cause  of  the  war  of  1812.  Let  no  man  then,  barely 
because  he  was  born  in  America,  presume  to  be  imbued  with  real 
and  true  " Americanism,"  who  either  ignores  the  direct  and  posi 
tive  obligations  of  the  constitution,  or  ignores  this,  one  of  its 
most  striking  characteristics.  As  well  might  any  unbelieving 
sinner  claim  to  be  one  of  the  faithful — one  of  the  elect  even — , 
barely  because  he  was  born  somewhere  within  the  limits  of  Chris 
tendom.  And  just  as  well  might  the  Jacobins,  who  "  decreed  God 
out  of  his  universe,"  have  dubbed  their  club  a  "  Christian  Associa 
tion,"  because  they  were  born  on  Christian  soil.  The  genuine 
disciples  of  "true  Americanism,"  like  the  genuine  followers  of  the 
Cross,  are  those  whose  hearts  are  warmed  and  fired — purified,  ele 
vated  and  ennobled  by  those  principles,  doctrines  and  precepts 
which  characterize  their  respective  systems.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  a  Kamschatkan,  a  Briton,  a  Jew,  or  a  Hindoo,  can  be  as  good 
a  Christian  as  any  one  born  on  "  Calvary's  brow,"  or  where  the 
"  Sermon  on  the  Mount"  was  preached !  And  for  the  same  reason 
an  Irishman,  a  Frenchman,  a  German,  or  Russian,  can  be  as 


470  LETTEK   ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISH. 

thoroughly  "American"  as  if  he  had  been  born  within  the  avails 
of  the  old  Independence  Hall  itself.  Which  was  the  "true  Ameri 
can,"  Arnold  or  Hamilton  ?  The  one  was  a  native  and  the  other 
was  an  adopted  son.  But  to  return.  What  do  our  Georgia 
friends  intend  to  do  ?  Is  it  not  time  that  they  had  shown  their 
hand  ?  Do  they  intend  to  abandon  the  Georgia  platform,  and  go 
over,  "horse,  foot  and  dragoons,"  into  a  political  alliance  with 
their  open  enemies  ?  Is  this  the  course  marked  out  for  them 
selves  by  any  of  the  gallant  old  whigs  of  the  7th  and  8th  Con 
gressional  districts  ?  I  trust  not,  I  hope  not.  But  if  they  do  not 
intend  thus  to  commit  themselves,  is  it  not  time  to  take  a  reckon 
ing  and  see  whither  they  are  drifting?  When  "the  blind  lead 
the  blind"  where  is  the  hope  of  safety?  I  have  been  cited  to  the 
resolution  which,  it  is  said,  the  late  Know-Nothing  convention 
passed  in  Macon.  This,  it  seems,  is  the  only  thing  that  the  600 
delegates  could  bring  forth  after  a  two  days'*"  labor  " — and  of  it 
we  may  well  say,  "  Monies  parturiunt  ridiculus  mus  nascitur" — 
"  The  mountains  have  been  in  labor  and  a  ridiculous  mouse  is 
born."  It  simply  affirms  most  meekly  and  submissively  what  no 
man  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  for  the  last  thirty-five 
years  would  have  ventured  to  deny,  without  justly  subjecting 
himself  to  the  charge  ofincivism — that  is,  that  "  Congress  has  no 
constitutional  power  to  intervene  by  excluding  a  new  State  apply 
ing  for  admission  into  the  Union  on  the  ground  that  the  consti 
tution  of  such  State  recognizes  slavery."  This  is  the  whole  life 
and  soul  of 'it,  unless  we  except  the  secret  blade  of  Joab  which  it 
bears  toward  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  concealed  under  a  garb. 

It  is  well  known  to  all  who  are  informed,  that  in  the  organic 
law  of  these  territories  the  right  of  voting,  while  they  remain  terri 
tories,  was  given  to  all  who  had  filed  a  declaration  of  intention  to 
become  citizens.  This  was  in  strict  compliance  with  the  usual 
practice  of  the  government  in  organizing  territories  ;  and  under 
this  provision  that  class  of  persons  are  now  entitled  to  vote. 
Kansas,  in  two  elections  under  this  law,  has  shown  that  an  over 
whelming  majority  of  her  people  are  in  favor  of  slavery.  Now, 
then,  when  Kansas  applies  for  admission  as  a  slave  State,  as 
she  doubtless  will,  a  southern  "  Know-Nothing,"  under  this 
resolution  can  unite  with  his  "  worthy  brethren"  at  the  North, 
in  voting  against  it,  upon  the  ground  that  some  have  voted  for 
a  constitution  recognizing  slavey,  who  had  not  been  "natural 
ized,"  but  had  only  declared  their  intention.  For  this  resolution, 
in  its  very  heart  and  core,  declares  that  the  right  to  establish 
slave  institutions  "in  the  organization  of  State  governments, 
belongs  to  the  native  and  naturalized  citizens,"  excluding  those 
who  have  only  declared  their  intention.  A  more  insidious  at 
tack  was  never  made  upon  the  principles  of  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill.  And  this  is  to  be  the  plank  on  which  northern 
and  southern  "  Know-Nothings"  are  to  stand  in  the  rejection  of 
Kansas.  But  the  main  objection  is  to  the  resolution.  Why  did  it 


LETTEE   ON   KNOW-NOTHINGISM.  471 

stop  with  a  simple  denial  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  reject  a  State 
on  account  of  slavery  ?  Particularly  when  it  had  opened  the  door 
for  the  rejection  of  Kansas  on  other  grounds  by  way  of  pretext. 
Why  did  it  not  plant  itself  upon  the  principles  of  the  Georgia 
resolutions  of  1850,  and  say  what  ought  to  be  done  in  case  of  the 
rejection  of  a  State  by  Congress  because  of  slavery  ?  So  far  from 
this  it  does  not  even  affirm  that  snch  rejection  by  their  "  worthy 
brethren"  of  the  North  would  be  sufficient  cause  for  severing  their 
party  affiliation  with  them  for  it  ? 

Again,  I  would  say  not  only  to  the  old  whigs  of  the  7th  and 
8th  Congressional  districts,  but  to  all  true  Georgians,  whether 
whigs  or  democrats,  union  men  or  fire-eaters,  whither  are  you 
drifting  ?  Will  you  not  pause  and  reflect  ?  Are  we  about  to  wit 
ness  in  this  insane  cry  against  foreigners  and  Catholics  a  fulfil 
ment  of  the  ancient  Latin  proverb  :  "  Quern  Deus  vultperdere  prius 
dementat!"  "  Whom  the  gods  intend  to  destroy  they  first  make 
mad!"  The  times  are  indeed  portentous  of  evil.  The  political 
horizon  is  shrouded  in  darkness.  No  man  knows  whom  he  meets, 
whether  he  be  friend  or  foe,  except  those  who  have  the  dim  glare 
of  the  covered  light  which  their  secret  signs  impart.  And  how 
long  this  will  be  a  protection  even  to  them,  is  by  no  means  cer 
tain.  They  have  already  made  truth  and  veracity  almost  a  by 
word  and  a  reproach.  When  truth  loses  caste  with  any  people- 
is  no  longer  considered  as  a  virtue — and  its  daily  and  hourly 
violation  are  looked  upon  with  no  concern  but  a  jeer  or  a  laugh, 
it  requires  very  little  forecast  to  see  what  will  very  soon  be  the 
character  of  that  people.  But,  sir,  come  what  may,  I  shall  pur 
sue  that  course  which  a  sense  of  duty  demands  of  me.  While  I 
hope  for  the  best,  I  shall  be  prepared  for  the  worst ;  and  if  the 
"  worst  comes  to  the  worst,"  as  it  may,  I  shall,  in  common  with 
my  fellow-citizens,  bear  with  patience  my  part  of  the  .common  ills. 
They  will  affect  me  quite  as  little  as  any  other  citizen,  for  I  have 
but  little  at  stake ;  and  so  far  as  my  public  position  and  character 
are  concerned,  I  shall  enjoy  that  consolation  which  is  to  be  derived 
from  a  precept  taught  me  in  early  life,  and  which  I  shall  ever 
cherish  and  treasure,  whatever  fortune  betides  me : 

"But  if,  on  life's  uncertain  main, 
Mishap  shall  mar  thy  sail, 
If,  faithful,  firm  and  true  in  vain, 
Woe,  want,  and  exile  thou  sustain, 
Spend  not  a  sigh  on  fortune  changed." 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H    STEPHENS. 

HON.  THOMAS  W.  THOMAS,  Elberton,  Ga. 


4:72  SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL. 


SPEECH  AT  THE  CITY  HALL,  IN  AUGUSTA,  ON  THE 
OCCASION  OF  HIS  ANNOUNCING  HIMSELF  A  CAN 
DIDATE  FOR  RE-ELECTION  TO  CONGRESS  IN  1855. 

FELLOW  CITIZENS  :  Two  years  ago,  or  a  little  less,  I  appeared 
before  you,  in  the  same  place  where  I  now  stand.  I  had  been 
put  in  nomination  for  Congress  informally,  by  a  portion  of  the 
people  in  this,  as  well  in  several  other  counties  of  the  district. 
In  responding  to  that  call,  on  that  occasion,  I  stated,  as  many 
of  you  doubtless  recollect,  that  I  had  no  pledge  to  give,  except 
that  if  I  should  be  returned,  it  would  be  my  utmost  endeavor  so 
to  discharge  my  duties  as  your  representative,  that  no  man  in 
the  district,  or  in  the  State,  whether  whig  or  democrat,  should, 
upon  the  expiration  of  my  term  of  office,  have  just  reason  or 
cause  to  say,  that  his  rights,  interest,  or  honor,  or  the  rights, 
interest,  or  honor  of  Georgia,  had  suffered  detriment  at  my  hands. 
With  this  pledge  I  was  elected.  The  term  of  office  to  which  I 
was  so  chosen  expired  the  4th  of  March  last.  My  acts,  as  your 
representative,  are  known  to  all  of  you;  they  have  been  sub 
jected  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny ;  and  before  proceeding  further 
with  what  I  have  to  say  this  night,  I  wish  to  ask  if  there  is  a  man 
in  this  very  large  assembly,  called  together  without  distinction 
of  party,  who  feels  that  the  pledge  then  given  has  not  been  re 
deemed  ?  Is  there  a  whig  here,  or  a  democrat,  or  a  "  know- 
nothing,"  or  an  "  anti  know-nothing" — a  Protestant,  or  a 
Catholic — a  native,  or  a  naturalized  citizen,  who  will  say  that  he 
feels  that  his  rights,  interests,  or  honor,  or  the  rights,  interests, 
or  honor  of  the  district  or  State,  as  far  as  they  were  committed 
to  me,  have  sustained  injury  in  my  hands  ?  If  so,  let  him  speak. 
Let  him  name  in  what  I  came  short  of  duty,  or  what  single  act  I 
did,  of  which  he  has  cause  to  complain  ?  I  pause  for  a  reply !  No 
one  answers.  Then  may  I  not  be  bold  enough  to  presume  that 
my  public  conduct  during  the  official  term  which  is  now  termi 
nated,  meets  the  approbation  of  all  ? 

[Here  a  suggestion  was  made  to  Mr.  Stephens  to  go  to  the 
front  steps  of  the  Hall,  as  a  great  many  persons  were  outside  and 
could  not  get  in,  who  were  desirous  of  hearing.  To  this  Mr. 
Stephens  said :  he  would  greatly  prefer  to  speak  in  the  house, 
but,  as  he  wished  all  to  hear,  he  would  leave  it  with  the  audience ; 
in  this  matter  as  in  all  others  he  would  cheerfully  bow  to  the  will 
of  the  people,  even  if  it  were  against  his  own.  The  desire  for  him 
to  go  to  the  steps  being  very  generally  expressed  he  acquiesced, 
and  proceeded  to  the  front  steps  of  the  Hall,  where  he  continued 
his  remarks  as  follows  :] 

Fellow  Citizens  : — In  obedience  to  the  general  wish,  and  that 
all  may  hear,  I  shall  proceed  with  what  I  have  to  say  as  soon  as 
you  get  composed.  I  cannot,  however,  speak  to  you  as  I  wish, 


SPEECH  IN   AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL.  473 

standing  as  we  are  in  the  dark — I  always  like  to  see  the  faces 
of  people  I  address  and  to  look  them  in  the  eye.  I  had  just  put 
a  question  to  those  in  the  large  room  within,  whether  there  was 
whig  or  democrat,  or  any  man  in  the  8th  Congressional  district 
present,  be  his  politics  what  they  may,  who  upon  a  review  of  my 
public  conduct  as  his  representative  in  the  Congress  terminated 
last  March,  can  say  that  he  has  cause  lor  aught  to  complain 
against  me  ?  Had  his  rights,  interest,  or  honor,  suffered  in  my 
hands  ?  To  this  question  thus  put,  there  was  no  gne  there  who 
said  that  they  had.  The  same  question  I  now  repeat  to  this  much 
larger  multitude  without.  If  there  be  one  here  who  has  aught  to 
complain  against  me,  in  the  redemption  of  the  pledge  made  two 
years  ago,  let  him  now  speak  ?  No  one  says  that  he  has.  Let 
the  past,  then,  be  considered  as  settled.  No  representative  could 
ask  for  more  than  that  his  official  conduct  should  meet  with  uni 
versal  approbation.  So  much  then  for  the  past — I  come  now  to 
the  present  and  the  future. 

Since  the  termination  of  my  official  relation  to  you  as  repre 
sentative,  new  questions,  new  issues,  new  principles,  and  new  com 
binations  of  parties,  for  new  objects  and  purposes,  have  become 
the  absorbing  themes  of  polit^Rl  agitation  and  excitement.  As 
I  differed  on  these  new  questions  and  issues  with  many  of  my  old 
friends,  who  were  still  looking  to  me,  as  they  informed  me,  as 
their  next  representative  in  Congress,  I  felt  it  no  less  due  to  them 
than  to  myself  to  let  them  know  that  I  could  never  consent  to  be 
their  representative  to  carry  out  these  new  purposes,  principles, 
and  objects  as  far  as  I  was  enabled  to  understand  them.  A 
strong  sense  of  duty  required  me  to  retire  from  a  position  where 
it  might  be  supposed  that  I  would  even  hold  office  conferred  by 
those  who  consider  these  new  questions  and  issues  as  the  para 
mount  questions  of  the  day.  This  I  did.  My  position  was  made 
known,  and  my  opinions  on  these  questions  were  fully  given  in  a 
letter  to  a  friend,  with  which  you  are  all  familiar.  Since  the 
publication  of  that  letter,  I  have  been  appealed  to  by  several, 
who  inform  me  that  they  belong  to  the  "New  Order,"  as  it  is 
called,  and  who  say,  that  while  they  disagree  with  me  in  many 
things  in  the  letter,  yet  they  look  upon  all  those  questions  as  of 
minor  and  secondary  importance  when  compared  with  others  that 
will  most  probably  arise  in  the  next  Congress,  on  which  they  do 
agree  most  fully  and  heartily  with  me ;  and  that  it  is  their  desire 
that  I  shall  be  their  representative  again,  notwithstanding  this 
difference  of  opinion.  Besides  these,  I  have  received  a  great 
many  urgent  appeals  not  only  from  old  political  associates  out 
side  of  the  order,  but  from  those  who  have  heretofore  been  oppo 
nents,  to  allow  my  name  to  go  again  before  the  people  of  the 
district  for  re-election.  This  class  agree  with  me  not  only  upon 
what  should  be  the  paramount  questions  of  the  day,  but  also  upon 
the  principles  set  forth  in  my  letter  to  Colonel  Thomas.  These 
appeals,  from  these  different  sources,  have  not  been  without  their 


474  SPEECH   IN  AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL. 

effect  upon  me.  But  other  considerations  have  also  contributed 
in  producing  that  determination  in  response  to  these  various 
calls,  which  it  is  my  purpose  on  this  occasion  to  announce  to  you. 
I  have  heard  that  it  has  been  said  that  I  had  declined  being  a 
candidate  because  a  majority  of  the  district  were  "  Know-Noth 
ings,"  and  I  was  afraid  of  being  beaten.  Now,  to  all  such  who 
entertain  any  such  opinion  of  me,  I  wish  to  say  that  I  was  influ 
enced  by  no  such  motive.  I  am  afraid  of  nothing  on  earth,  or 
above  the  earjh,  or  under  the  earth,  except  to  do  wrong — the 
path  of  duty  I  shall  ever  endeavor  to  travel,  "  fearing  no 
evil,"  and  dreading  no  consequences.  Let  time-servers,  and 
those  whose  whole  object  is  to  see  and  find  out  which  way  the 
popular  current  for  the  day  and  the  hour  runs,  that  they  may 
float  upon  it,  fear  or  dread  defeat  if  they  please.  I  would  rather 
be  defeated  in  a  good  cause  than  to  triumph  in  a  bad  one.  I 
would  not  give  a  Jig  for  a  man  who  would  shrink  from  the  dis 
charge  of  dutjr  for  fear  of  defeat.  All  is  not  gold  that  glitters  ; 
and  there  is  no  telling  the  pure  from  the  base  metal  until  it  is 
submitted  to  the  fiery  ordeal  of  the  crucible  and  the  furnace.  The 
best  test  of  a  man's  integrity  and  the  soundness  of  his  principles 
is  the  furnace  of  popular  opinioi^feind  the  hotter  the  furnace  the 
better  the  test.  From  that  test  I  have  never  shrank,  and  never 
shall.  All  that  I  wanted  after  my  principles  were  made  known 
to  the  people,  was  to  be  satisfied  that  any  portion  of  them  in  the 
district — as  small  even  as  Gideon's  hosts  of  three  hundred — 
desired  me  to  go  before  the  district  with  these  principles  and  in 
advocacy  of  them  ;  before  them  I  was  willing  to  fall,  if  the  people 
so  said.  Bare  success,  depending  often  upon  the  fickle  goddess  of 
fortune,  or  luck,  or  chance,  or  even  temporary  delusion,  is  not  a 
divinity  at  whose  shrine  I  pour  oblations. 

Having  been  satisfied,  therefore,  that  there  are  three  hundred 
who  do  thus  desire  me  to  be  a  candidate  again,  and  also  to  let 
those  who  seem  to  know  so  little  of  me  or  the  motives  by  which 
I  am  governed,  understand  that  I  am  not  afraid  to  run  or  afraid 
to  do  any  thing  that  I  may  think  right,  whether  it  is  attended 
with  success  or  defeat,  I  am  here  to-night.  I  have  travelled  from 
a  distant  part  of  the  State  where  I  first  heard  these  floating 
taunts  of  fear — as  having  come  from  this  district — for  the  sole 
and  express  purpose  of  announcing  to  you,  one  and  all,  and  in 
this  most  public  way,  to  announce  to  the  other  counties,  without 
distinction  of  party,  that  I  am  again  a  candidate  for  Congress  in 
this  district.  The  announcement  I  now  make.  My  name  is 
hereby  presented  to  the  district.  Not  by  any  convention  under 
a  majority  or  a  two  third  rule — but  by  myself.  Do  with  it  as  you 
may  each  of  you  think  proper.  I  have  no  other  pledge  or  promise 
to  give  but  the  one  given  before — that  is,  if  I  should  be  elected, 
I  shall  endeavor  to  discharge  my  duties  as  that  no  man  in  the 
district  shall  have  just  cause  to  feel  that  his  rights,  interests  or 
honor  have  suffered  injury  in  my  hands  at  the  expiration  of  my 


SPEECH  IN  AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL.  175 

term  of  office  ;  or  that  the  rights,  interests  or  honor  of  our  com 
mon  State  have  sustained  injury,  so  far  as  they  may  be  committed 
to  me  as  one  of  the  representatives. 

I  know,  fellow-citizens,  that  many  of  you  differ  with  me  upon 
those  exciting  questions,  which  are  now  dividing — and  most  un 
happily,  too,  as  I  conceive — dividing  our  people.  I  know,  too, 
what  a  difficult  and  unpleasant  task  it  is  to  speak  to  a  people  in 
opposition  to  the  strong  inclinations  of  their  minds — not  to  say 
settled  convictions,  prejudices  and  fixed  judgments.  But  I  should 
be  untrue  to  you  as  well  as  myself  this  night,  if  I  did  not  say 
something  to  you  upon  these  questions.  Many  of  you,  I  doubt 
not,  perhaps  most  of  you,  from  what  I  have  heard,  belong  to  the 
''new  order."  I  have  therefore  before  me  the  very  unpleasant 
and  difficult  task  alluded  to.  To  go  with  the  current  is  often  the 
"facilis  descensus  averno."  But  to  oppose  it,  "hie  labor  est." 
How  few  will  undertake  it !  History  furnishes  us  with  but  few 
instances.  It  is  easy  to  join  the  shouts  of  the  multitude,  but  it 
is  hard  to  say  to  a  multitude  that  they  are  wrong.  When 
Themistocles  conceived  the  proposition  of  burning  all  the  fleets 
of  the  other  Grecian  States  by  stratagem,  so  that  Athens  might 
hold  dominion  over  the  seas,  he  desired  that  his  scheme  might 
be  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  Aristides.  This,  by  general 
accord  was  granted,  for  all  had  the  most  unbounded  confidence 
in  the  integrity,  as  well  as  wisdom,  of  the  man  to  whom  the  ques 
tion  was  referred.  Had  Aristides  courted  popular  favor  then  at 
the  expense  of  right,  how  easy  was  the  road  to  attain  it.'  But 
hear  his  judgment : 

"  Oh,  Athenians  !  what  Themistocles  purposes  would  be  greatly  to  the 
advantage  of  Athens,  but  it  would  be  unjust !" 

He  was  a  man  who  dared  to  speak  the  truth  to  a  people  against 
what  appeared  to  be  their  temporary  interest.  And  in  his  noble 
vindication  of  the  right  against  the  wrong  policy  proposed  at  that 
time,  he  prevailed.  Now  in  the  same  spirit  I  wish  to  say  to  all 
of  you  who  are  in  "  this  order,"  that  the  whole  movement,  in  my 
opinion,  is  wrong;  wrong  in  its  aims  and  objects,  wrong  from 
beginning  to  end,  and  exceedingly  unjust.  I  wish  no  man  to  con 
sider  me  as  intending  to  be  personally  offensive  in  any  thing  that 
I  may  sa}'.  I  would  talk  to  you,  not  only  as  a  friend,  but  as  a 
brother,  upon  this  subject.  Your  numbers  here,  or  in  the  district, 
make  no  difference ;  I  would  be  willing  to  go  into  one  of  your 
lodges  or  councils,  where  every  man  would  be  against  me,  if  I 
could  be  admitted  without  first  having  to  put  myself  under 
obligations  never  to  tell  what  occurred  therein,  and  there  speak 
the  same  sentiments  that  I  shall  utter  here  this  night.  Bear  with 
me  then,  while  I  proceed.  Don't  think  or  imagine  that  I  make 
any  personal  application  of  any  remark  or  illustration  that  may 
seem  to  be  offensive.  Many  of  my  best  friends  on  earth  are  in 
your  order,  and  besides  this,  no  man  who  knows  me  can  believe 


476  SPEECH  IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL. 

that  I  would,  without  provocation,  intentionally  offend  any  mortal 
on  earth.  It  is  not  my  nature  to  do  it.  I  believe  you  are  in 
pursuit  of  a  great  wrong,  and  I  must  tell  you  so.  Discriminate, 
if  you  please,  between  yourselves  and  the  thing  spoken  of — 

"  Vice  is  a  monster  of  such  frightful  mien 
As,  to  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  seen." 

It  is  to  exhibit  and  hold  up  even  to  yourselves  the  great  evils 
and  dangers  to  be  apprehended  from  this  "new,"  and  (I  think) 
most  vicious  political  "  monster"  that  I  would  address  you — and 
against  the  influences  of  which  I  would  warn  and  guard  you,  as 
well  as  the  rest  of  our  people.  And  I  would  do  it  with  the  same 
earnestness  that  I  would  warn  and  entreat  the  best  friends  in  the 
world,  to  beware  of  the  insidious  and  poisonous  serpent,  he  might 
be  fostering  in  his  bosom.  For  as  of  "vice,"  so  it  may  be  with 
this — "  new  order :" 

"Yet,  seen  too  oft,  familiar  with  her  face, 
We  first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace." 

And  with  the  general  embrace  by  the  people  of  this  country, 
comes,  in  my  opinion,  political  ruin  and  death.  My  views  on  this 
subject  have  been  given  In  the  letter  alluded  to.  But  as  I  have 
seen  some  remarks  and  criticisms  on  the  views  thus  presented  by 
anonymous  writers,  who  spout  of  me  in  the  dark  through  the 
newspapers,  their  names  and  characters  being  unknown,  I  will  take 
this  occasion  to  notice  some  of  them,  not  so  fully  perhaps  as  I  shall 
on  some  future  occasion.  Several  complain  most  bittferly  that  I 
compared  the  machinery  of  this  organization  to  the  Jacobin  clubs  of 
France.  And  one  undertakes  to  correct  me  in  a  point  of  history 
as  to  the  first  name  assumed  by  that  order.  He  says  it  was  not 
the  "  Friends  of  the  Constitution,"  but  the  "  Friends  of  the  Revo 
lution."  In  this  I  may  be  contradicted  but  not  corrected.  The 
first  society  instituted  in  Paris,  which,  afterwards,  became  the 
society  of  the  Jacobins,  was  organized  under  the  specious  name 
of  the  "  Friends  of  the  Constitution."  Let  this  anonymous  writer 
produce  his  authority — Thiers  is  mine.  Again,  he  says  I  com 
plained  of  the  secrecy  of  the  principles  of  the  party,  and  yet  soon 
found  out  that  one  of  the  principles  of  the  party  was  that  "  Amer 
icans  shall  rule  America."  I  found  out  no  such  thing.  On  the 
contrary,  I  showed  that  (if  what  was  attributed  to  them  be  true, 
but  of  which  there  was  then  no  reliable  information  within  my 
knowledge)  while  they  assumed  the  specious  title  of  "Americans 
shall  rule  America,"  yet  they  aimed  at  putting  a  large  class  of  as 
good  and  as  true  native-Americans  as  the  writer  himself,  under  the 
ban  of  civil  proscription.  Are  not  the  descendants  of  Catholic 
Marylanders  as  much  American  b}T  birth  as  the  New  England  de 
scendants  of  the  Puritans  that  landed  on  Plymouth  rock  ?  While 
the  specious  outside  title  of  the  party  is,  that  "  Americans  shall 
rule  America,"  when  we  come  to  look  at  its  secret  objects  as  they 


SPEECH   IN  AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL.  477 

leak  out,  we  find  that  one  of  its  main  purposes  is  not  that  "  Amer 
icans  shall  rule  America,"  but  that  those  of  a  particular  religious 
faith,  though  as  good  Americans  as  any  others,  shall  be  ruled  by 
the  rest. 

But  it  is  said,  "  the  proscription  is  not  against  a  religious  but  a 
political  enemy.  The  Romish  church  being  as  much  a  political 
party  as  the  abolitionists  are ;  far  more  dangerous,  because  more 
powerful."  Was  a  bolder  assertion,  without  one  fact  to  rest  upon, 
ever  attempted  to  be  palmed  off  upon  a  confiding  people  ?  The 
Romish  church  a  political  party  ?  Where  are  its  candidates  ? 
How  many  do  they  number  in  our  State  legislatures  or  in  Congress  ? 
What  dangers  are  they  threatening,  or  what  have  they  ever  plotted  ? 
Let  them  be  named  ?  More  dangerous  than  the  "  Abolitionists  1" 
How,  when  and  where  ?  Was  it  when  Lord  Baltimore,  a  Catholic, 
established  the  colony  of  Maryland,  and  for  the  first  time  on  this 
continent  established  the  principle  of  free  toleration  in  religious 
worship  ?  Was  it  when  Charles  Carroll,  a  Catholic,  signed  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  ?  or  do  the  dangers  arise  from  the 
fact,  that  the  Catholics  of  New  England  will  not  join  certain  Pro 
testants  there  in  waging  a  war  against  the  South,  and  what  they 
denounce  as  "the  sin  of  slavery?"  That  they  have  not,  and  do 
not  join  in  this  crusade  against  us  is  admitted.  It  cannot  be  de 
nied.  Of  the  three  thousand  New  England  clergymen  who  sent 
the  anti-Nebraska  memorial  to  the  Senate  last  year,  not  one  was  a 
Catholic.  I  stated  as  I  had  been  informed  and  believed,  and  now 
state  again.  But  the  reason  assigned  for  this  by  one  of  my  assail 
ants  is,  that  these  Christian  ministers  could  not,  "with  self- 
respect,"  ask  a  Catholic  to  unite  with  them  in  it.  Well,  if  this  was 
the  reason,  and  if,  as  the  same  writer  says,  they  are  more  dangerous 
to  us  than  the  abolitionists,  backed  by  these  Christian  ministers 
who  have  so  much  self-respect — why  did  they  not  get  up  one  of 
their  own  ?  Why  have  they  never  gotten  up  one  yet  ?  But  the 
time,  says  the  writer,  has  not  yet  come  for  the  Catholics  to  act  in 
this  matter.  Well,  then,  let  us  wait  until  it  does  come.  The  time 
for  them  to  act  has  not  yet  come.  That,  I  expect  is  much  nearer 
the  truth  as  to  the  reason  why  none  of  their  names  were  011  the 
anti-slavery  memorial,  than  any  sense  of  "  self-respect"  which  pre 
vented  those  who  did  sign  it  from  asking  their  co-operation.  But 
the  time  for  the  abolitionists,  and  the  three  thousand  Protestant 
clergymen  to  act — and  to  act  most  hostilely,  dangerously,  and 
unchristianly  against  us,  has  come.  This  is  not  denied.  The 
dangers  from  these  are  pressing  upon  us.  Let  us  then  put  them 
down,  even  with  Catholic  aid,  if  we  can.  The  other  dangers  we 
are  told  of,  exist  only  in  conjecture.  They  may  come — this  is  all 
that  can  be  said  of  them  ;  but  if  a  fire  were  raging  in  one  part  of 
your  city,  how  unwise  would  it  be  to  draw  off  your  engines  and 
all  means  for  extinguishing  it,  and  start  to  a  remote  place  where 
all  was  as  yet  safe,  to  guard  that  point  merely  because  a  fire  might 
break  out  there  ?  But  it  is  said  that  great  danger  is  to  be  appre- 


478  SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA    CITY    HALL. 

bended  from  the  Catholics,  because  of  a  "  secret  order"  amongst 
them,  known  as  Jesuits. 

"  No  one,"  says  this  writer,  "  knows,  or  possibly  can  know,  the  extent  of 
their  influence  in  this  country.  One  of  them  may  eat  at  your  table,  in 
struct  your  children,  and  profess  to  be  a  good  Protestant,  and  you  never 
suspect  him.  Their  great  aim  is  to  make  their  mark  in  America,  Per 
jury,  to  them,  is  no  sin,  if  the  object  of  it  be  to  spread  Catholicism  or  ac 
quire  political  influence  in  the  country." 

Whether  this  be  true  of  the  Jesuits  or  not,  I  cannot  say.  But 
I  submit  it  to  the  consideration  of  candid  minds,  how  far  it  is  true 
of  the  "new  order"  of  " know-nothings,"  which  is  now  so  strenu 
ously  endeavoring  to  make  its  mark  in  America,  and  to  gain 
political  influence  in  the  country,  not  only  by  putting  down  all 
foreigners,  and  all  native  born  citizens  who  may  be  of  Catholic 
faith,  but  also  all  other  native  born  citizens  who  will  not  take  upon 
their  necks  the  yoke  of  their  power.  Do  not  hundreds  and  thou 
sands  of  them  go  about  daily  and  hourly,  denying  that  they  belong 
to  the  order,  or  that  they  know  any  thing  about  it  ?  May  they 
not,  and  do  they  not  "  eat  at  your  table,"  attend  your  sick,  and 
some  of  them  preach  from  your  pulpits,  and  yet  deny  that  they 
know  any  thing  about  that  "  order,"  which  they  are  making  such 
efforts  to  spread  in  the  land  ?  I  do  not  say  all  of  them  do  this — 
but  is  it  not  common  with  "the  order"  thus,  by  some  sort  of  "equi 
vocation  and  slippery  construction,"  to  mislead  and  deceive  those 
with  whom  they  converse  ?  By  way  of  excuse  for  all  this,  we  are 
told  that  our  Saviour,  on  more  occasions  than  one,  enjoined  on 
those  whom  he  addressed,  "to  see  thou  tell  no  man."  But  it  is 
one  thing  not  to  speak,  and  quite  another  to  speak  falsely  or  un 
truthfully.  Our  Saviour  never  told  his  disciples  or  others,  to 
misrepresent,  to  deceive,  or  to  deny  the  truth.  Whether  thus  to 
deceive,  equivocate,  and  prevaricate  be  one  of  the  obligations  of 
this  "new  order,"  which  is  to  effect  such  reformation  in  morals 
and  government  amongst  us,  and  "  to  put  an  end  to  the  reign  of 
small  men  and  suppress  corruption,"  I  know  not,  but  that  it  is  one 
of  the  general  effects  of  the  institution  wherever  it  gains  a  foot 
hold,  all  must  admit.  You  know  it  is  so.  A  question  was  once 
propounded  to  our  Saviour,  which  he  never  answered.  It  was  put 
by  Pontius  Pilate  soon  after  he  was  betrayed  by  Judas  Iscariot 
under  the  secret  sign  of  a  kiss,  and  just  after  Peter  denied  that  he 
belonged  to  the  "order"  or  society  of  his  disciples.  The  question 
was,  "  What  is  truth  ?"  He  did  not  answer  it.  He  had  but  a  little 
while  before  been  betrayed  by  one  of  the  twelve,  and  another  had 
just  denied  that  he  knew  him.  The  sa«ae  question  I  put  to  you, 
fellow-citizens,  this  night — "What  is  truth?"  Were  I  to  answer 
it,  I  should  say  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  virtue,  all  religion,  all 
integrity,  all  honor,  and  every  thing  valuable  in  human  character, 
human  society,  and  man's  civilization.  There  is  nothing  worse 
that  can  be  said  of  any  man  or  any  people  indicating  a  destruction 
of  morals  or  personal  degradation,  than  that  "  the  truth  is  not  in 


SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL.  479 

him."  It  is  the  life  and  soul  of  all  the  virtues,  human  or  divine. 
Tell  me  not  that  any  party  will  effect  reformation  of  any  sort,  bad 
as  we  now  are,  in  this  land,  which  brings  into  disrepute  this  prin 
ciple,  upon  which  rest  all  our  hopes  on  earth,  and  all  our  hopes 
for  immortalit}".  And  my  opinion  is,  that  the  Protestant  minis 
ters  of  the  gospel  in  this  country,  instead  of  joining  in  this  New 
England  puritanical  prescriptive  crusade  against  Catholics,  could 
not  render  a  better  service  to  their  churches,  as  well  as  the  State, 
in  the  present  condition  of  morals  amongst  us,  than  to  appoint  a 
day  for  every  one  of  them  to  preach  to  their  respective  congrega 
tions  from  this  text,  "what  is  truth?"  Let  it  also  be  a  day  set 
aside  for  fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer — for  repentance  in  "  sack 
cloth  and  ashes  " — on  account  of  the  alarming  prevalence  of  the 
enormous  sin  of  lying ! — I  speak  strongly,  earnestly,  and  fervently, 
because  I  so  feel.  I  speak  plainly,  too,  because  the  times  require 
it.  Was  there  ever  such  a  state  of  general  distrust  between  man 
and  man  before  ?  Could  it  ever  have  been  said  of  a  Georgia  gen 
tleman,  until  within  a  few  months  past,  that  "he  says  so  and  so," 
but  I  don't  know  whether  to  believe  him  or  not  ?  Is  it  not  bring 
ing  Protestanism,  and  Christianity  itself,  into  disgrace,  when  such 
remarks  are  daily  made  (and  not  without  just  cause)  about  church 
communicants  of  all  our  Protestant  denominations  ? — and  by  one 
church  member  even,  about  his  fellow-member?  Where  is  this 
state  of  things  to  lead  to,  or  end,  but  in  general  deception,  hypoc 
risy,  knavery,  and  universal  treachery  ?  Unless  this  great  monster 
vice  of  the  day  is  held  up  to  the  public  gaze  that  it  may  be  seen, 
looked  at,  hated,  and  abandoned  speedily,  as  it  ought  to  be. 

But  it  is  said  again,  that  David  and  his  men  kept  secret  from 
Saul — that  Moses  was  at  the  head  of  a  secret  movement  when  he 
delivered  Israel  from  Egypt — that  Alfred  the  Great  rescued  his 
country  in  a  similar  manner  from  the  domination  of  the  Danes — 
that  Samuel  Adams  and  others,  habited  like  Indians,  in  11T3, 
struck  the  first  blow  for  American  independence.  This  may  all 
be  true — but  they  were  all  revolutionary  movements.  When  any 
people  have  cause  for  revolution  in  their  government,  secrecy,  and 
even  conspiracy  may  be  justified;  but  not  until  then.  How  is  it 
here  ?  Is  revolution  the  object  ?  If  so,  the  analogy  may  hold 
good ;  not  otherwise.  Our  government  is  founded  upon  public 
virtue,  public  intelligence,  and  public  integrity.  Why  then  with 
hold  any  proposed  measure  from  the  scrutiny  of  public,  open,  and 
fair  discussion  ?  Why  say  that  the  principles  of  a  party  are  pub 
lished,  when  the  very  existence  of  the  party  is  denied  by  most  of 
its  members  ?  Who  could  believe  or  trust  a  party  so  discredited 
by  their  own  words  ?  The  tyranny  of  old  parties  is  the  excuse 
for  this.  Tyranny !  Tyranny  indeed  !  Was  ever  such  tyranny 
fceard  of  in  any  old  party  in  this  country  as  that  which  this  "  new- 
order"  sets  up  ?  They  attempt  not  only  to  tie  up  the  consciences 
of  their  members,  and  bind  them  by  obligations  strong  as  oaths, 
but  to  control  their  liberty  as  freemen  to  vote  as  they  please — 


480  SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL. 

this  is  apparent  from  their  ritual,  which  has  come  to  the  light 
(not,  however,  by  their  consent),  and  which  I  had  not  seen  when 
my  letter  was  written.  In  this  we  see  that  by  the  second  degree 
each  member  is  sworn  to  vote  as  the  majority  may  order,  even 
against  his  own  preference  and  judgment.  In  the  old  parties,  in 
their  greatest  corruption,  a  conformity  with  the  will  of  the  majo 
rity  was  altogether  optional.  But  in  this  new  party  all  option, 
all  discretion,  all  right  of  preference  in  voting  possessed  by  free 
men,  is  taken  away — or  attempted  to  be  taken  away  by  a  previous 
oath.  Was  tyranny  ever  more  exacting  or  more  monstrous  in 
subjecting  the  will — the  free  choice  of  its  victims  to  its  humor  and 
control  ?  But  the  first  degree,  as  it  is  called,  is  that  which  aims 
the  most  fatal  blow  at  the  principle  on  which  our  government  was 
founded.  It  is  this  which  marks  the  movement,  whatever  men 
may  think  of  it,  with  a  revolutionary  character.  In  taking  this 
very  first  step,  the  members  of  the  party  are  required  to  agree 
and  swear  to  make  a  test  as  to  qualification  for  office,  which  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  shall  not  be  made. 
Members  of  the  order  may  deny  it  and  say,  as  some  do,  that  they 
"  are  pledged  for  religious  freedom  to  every  church  ;  be  it  Catholic 
or  Protestant."  But  every  one  of  them  knows — and  whether  they 
deny  it  or  not,  there  is  a  secret  monitor  within,  that  tells  them 
they  have  pledged  themselves  never  to  vote  for  any  Roman 
Catholic  to  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  ?  They  have  thus  pledged 
themselves  to  set  up  a  religious  test  in  qualifications  for  office 
against  the  express  words  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ?  The  words  of  the  constitution  are  : 

"  But  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required,  as  a  qualification  to  any 
office  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States." 

"And  the  Lord  commanded  the  man,  saying,  of  every  tree  of  the  Garden 
thou  mayest  freely  eat,  but  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil 
thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  for  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt 
surely  die." 

So  of  all  the  reasons  you  may  have  or  objections  or  disqualifi 
cations  in  the  selection  of  men  to  office  or  places  of  public  trust 
under  the  United  States.  You  may  make  any  other  test  but  this 
religious  test — the  test  of  "  good  and  evil11  in  the  conscience  of  men 
— that  you.  cannot  make  under  the  constitution — that  test  our 
great  lawgivers — with  Washington,  the  father  of  his  country,  at 
their  head  said  "  shall  not  be  required," — this  is  the  forbidden 
fruit — of  it  thou  shalt  not  eat  and  live. 

Their  very  organization  is  not  only  anti-American,  anti-repub 
lican,  but  at  war  with  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Union,  and, 
therefore,  revolutionary  in  its  character — view  it  as  you  will,  what 
is  it  but  an  attempt  to  nullify  and  practically  to  destroy  this  pro 
vision  of  the  constitution  ?"  Thus  silently  and  secretly  to  effect 
for  all  practical  purposes  a  change  in  our  form  of  government. 
And  what  is  this  but  revolution  ?  Not  an  open  and  manly  rebel- 


SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL.  481 

lion,  but  a  secret  and  covert  attempt  to  undermine  the  very 
corner  stone  of  the  temple  of  our  liberties  ?  I  have  no  idea  that 
you  who  hear  me  and  thousands  of  others  who  have  unwittingly 
gone  into  this  organization,  took  any  such  view  of  the  subject, 
and  perhaps  do  not  even  now.  But  what  else  can  you  make  of 
it  ?  How  can  you  make  that  or  any  thing  a  test  for  office  which 
the  constitution  says  shall  not  be  made  a  test  without  violating 
both  the  letter  and  spirit  of  that  instrument. 

This  movement,  fellow-citizens,  as  little  as  you  may  think  of  it, 
is  revolutionary  in  its  character.  And  though  at  first  appearance 
it  may  seem  to  be  a  very  peaceful  and  bloodless  revolution,  yet 
the  "  end"  is  to  come  after.  It  is  the  first  step  in  this  country 
since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  which,  if  followed  up,  will 
lead  inevitably  to  civil  war,  and  ultimately  to  an  overthrow  of 
this  government.  It  proposes  to  put  a  large  class  of  as  true  na 
tive  born  citizens  as  any  in  the  United  States,  under  the  ban  of 
civil  proscription.  And  whenever  any  government  denies  to  any 
class  of  its  citizens  any  equal  participation  in  the  privileges,  immu 
nities,  and  honors  enjoyed  by  all  others,  it  parts  with  all  just  claims 
to  their  allegiance.  Allegiance  is  due  only  so  long  as  protection 
is  extended ;  and  protection  necessarily  implies  an  equality  of  right 
to  stand  or  fall,  according  to  merit,  amongst  all  the  members 
of  society  or  the  citizens  of  the  commonwealth.  When  native 
Catholics,  therefore,  or  any  other  class  of  citizens,  be  they  Metho 
dist  or  Baptist  or  Presbyterian,  are  practically  denied  the 
equality  of  right  in  the  administration  of  their  government,  they 
will  naturally  become  its  enemies  ;  and  they  ought  to — the  result, 
sooner  or  later,  will  be  strife — civil  discord  and  civil  war.  Men 
so  situated  sooner  or  later  will  fight ;  the  best  of  our  Protestant 
friends,  under  like  circumstances,  would  fight  too.  For  the  best 
of  men,  after  all,  have  enough  of  the  old  leaven  of  human  nature 
left  about  them  to  fight  when  they  feel  aggrieved — outraged  and 
trampled  upon  ;  and  strange  to  say,  when  men  get  to  fighting  about 
religion  they  fight  harder,  and  longer,  and  more  exterminatingly 
than  upon  any  other  subject.  The  history  of  the  world  teaches 
this.  Many  of  the  bloody  wars  that  rest  as  a  blot  and  stain  upon 
Christendom  attest  it.  The  tendency  of  this  movement,  there 
fore,  so  far  as  this  branch  of  it  is  concerned,  is  to  civil  war — just 
as  inevitably  as  a  collision  of  two  engines  meeting  on  your  rail 
road  track,  unless  checked  in  their  progress.  It  is  the  first 
movement  of  the  kind  since  the  formation  of  our  government. 
Already  we  see  the  spirit  abroad  which  is  to  enkindle  the  fires 
and  set  the  faggots  a  blazing — not  by  the  Catholics — they  are  com 
paratively  few  and  weak ;  their  only  safety  is  in  the  shield  of  the 
constitutional  guarantee  ;  minorities  seldom  assail  majorities  ;  and 
persecutions  always  begin  with  the  larger  numbers  against  the 
smaller.  But  this  spirit  is  evinced  by  one  of  the  numerous  re 
plies  to  my  letter.  He  says :  "  We  call  upon  the  children  of  the 
Puritans  of  the  North  and  the  Huguenots  of  the  South,  by  the 
31 


482  SPEECH    IN    AUGUSTA    CITY   HALL. 

remembrance  of  the  fires  of  Smithfield  and  the  bloody  St.  Bar 
tholomew,  to  lay  down  for  once  all  sectional  difficulties, "etc.,  and 
to  join  in  this  great  American  movement  of  proscribing  Catho 
lics.  What  is  this  but  the  tocsin  of  intestine  strife  ?  Why  call 
up  the  remembrance  of  the  fires  of  Smithfield,  but  to  whet  the 
Protestant  appetite  for  vengeance  ?  Why  stir  up  the  quiet  ashes 
of  bloody  St.  Bartholomew,  but  for  the  hope,  perhaps,  of  finding 
therein  a  slumbering  spark  from  which  new  fires  may  be  started  ? 
Why  exhume  the  atrocities,  cruelties,  and  barbarities  of  ages  gone 
by  from  the  repose  in  which  they  have  been  buried  for  hundreds 
of  years,  unless  it  be  to  reproduce  the  seed  and  spread  amongst 
us  the  same  moral  infection  and  loathsome  contagion  ?  just  as  it 
is  said  the  plague  is  sometimes  occasioned  in  London  by  disen 
tombing  and  exposing  to  the  atmosphere  the  latent  virus  of  the 
fell  disease  still  lingering  in  the  dusty  bones  of  those  who  died 
of  it  centuries  ago  ? 

Fellow-citizens  —  Fellow-Protestants  —  Fellow-Americans — all 
who  reverence  the  constitution  of  your  country,  I  entreat  .you, 
and  I  invoke  you  to  give  no  listening  ear  to  such  fanatical  ap 
peals.  These  sleeping  embers,  if  stirred,  may  kindle  fires  that 
you  cannot  extinguish,  but  in  which  you  yourselves  and  all  you 
hold  most  dear,  may  be  consumed.  It  was  to  guard  against  all 
such  scenes  as  were  witnessed  at  Smithfield,  and  such  butcheries 
as  were  inflicted  upon  poor,  inoffensive  Catholics  in  their  turn  by 
infuriated  Protestants,  that  that  wise  provision  was  put  in  our 
constitution,  with  the  view  of  forever  excluding  religion  from 
politics.  As  long  as  the  constitution  shall  be  preserved  and  main 
tained  in  its  letter  and  spirit  on  this  subject,  such  scenes  can 
never  occur  with  us.  What  is  the  chiefest  of  all  our  liberties 
that  we  boast  of  but  that  every  man  in  this  country  can  sit  down 
under  his  own  vine  and  fig  tree  and  worship  God  as  he  pleases, 
while  there  is  none  to  molest  or  make  him  afraid  ?  Why  is  it  that 
on  each  Sabbath  morning  in  your  city,  you  -see  the  various  con 
gregations  assembling  peaceably  and  quietly  to  their  respective 
churches — some  to  the  Baptist,  some  to  the  Methodist,  some  to 
the  Presbyterian,  some  to  the  Episcopal,  some  to  the  Catholic, 
and  some  doubtless  to  various  others,  but  all  to  their  own  liking ; 
and  after  service,  returning  in  the  same  quiet,  peaceful,  and  Chris 
tian  manner  to  their  homes  ?  Why  are  such  scenes  witnessed 
every  seventh  day  in  the  week  throughout  this  confederacy  of 
States  ?  It  is  not  so  in  other  countries,  and  why  is  it  so  in  this  ? 
And  why  has  it  been  so  ever  since  the  government  was  formed  ? 
It  is  because  of  that  provision  in  our  constitution  which  secures 
the  right  of  conscience,  and  banishes  from  this  land  the  fell 
demon  of  religious  intolerance.  The  object  of  this  movement  is 
to  nullify  that  provision — to  strike  it  down — to  paralyze,  if  not 
to  cut  off  this  strong  arm,  outstretched  for  the  protection  of  all. 
It  was  put  there  by  Baldwin,  the  Pinckneys,  Madison,  Hamilton, 
uucl  Washington.  Were  they  ''small  men,"  "demagogues,"  and 


SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY  HALL.  483 

"tricksters,"  or  am  I  to  be  denounced  as  a  "small  man,"  "a 
demagoguge,"  and  "  trickster"  for  upholding,  maintaining  and 
defending  what  they,  in  their  profound  wisdom  and  far-reaching- 
forecast,  saw  was  necessary  ?  Be  not  deceived.  Be  not  tempted. 
Let  not  this,  our  American  Eden,  be  the  theatre  of  another  fall. 
Recollect  that  the  great  arch  enemy  of  the  moral  government  of 
the  universe  approached  our  common  mother,  Eve,  in  the  garden 
of  innocence,  under  the  guise  of  a  serpent,  the  subtlest  of  all 
animals.  He  approached  her,  too,  with  a  lie  in  his  mouth.  He  said, 
to  her,  that  if  she  eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit  "thou  shalt  not 
surely  die."  She  believed  him— she  was  deceived — she  ate — she 
fell,  and  with  "  her  fall  came  all  our  woes."  Our  great  lawgivers, 
Washington,  the  father  of  his  country,  at  their  head,  have  said 
•'  But  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to 
any  office  of  public  trust  in  the  United  States."  Will  you  obey 
his  precepts,  and  follow  those  who  adhere  to  them,  or  will  you 
yield  to  that  most  fatal  temptation  with  which  you  are  at  this 
time  beguiled  ? 

The  blow  that  is  now  being  aimed  at  your  ablest  and  most  ex 
perienced  public  men — your  best  statesmen — under  the  cry  of 
"  small  men,"  "demagogues,"  and  "party  tricksters,"  is  not  the 
least  ominous  of  the  signs  of  the  times.  Nor  is  it  a  very  modern 
movement  either.  There  was  one  of  the  sort  in  England  once  ; 
Jack  Cade  was  at  the  head  of  it  there  ;  the  first  step  in  his  revolu 
tionary  attempt  was  to  set  aside  all  who  knew  more  of  the  laws  of 
the  realm  than  he  or  his  associates  did.  Koine  also  was  the 
theatre  of  many  such  movements.  France  has  had  many  of  them 
too.  But  Greece,  to  which  reference  has  been  made  by  one  of 
these  "  know-nothing"  writers,  is  the  last  country  in  the  world 
that  those  who  raise  this  cry  of  "down  with  public  men,  however 
long  tried  and  found  worthy,"  should  point  us  to.  It  is  true,  when 
we  cast  our  eyes  upon  the  land  of  Homer  and  Plato,  we  see 

"  'Tis  Greece,  but  living  Greece  no  more." 

We  recollect  that  it  is  there  that  liberty  once  flourished — that 
there  heroes  fought,  and  poets  sung,  and  philosophy  reared 
her  temples  of  arts  and  sciences,  while  statesmen  directed  public 
affairs.  But  we  recollect,  also,  that  the  day  of  her  fall  was  pre 
ceded  by  just  such  movements  as  the  present,  which  unfortu 
nately  succeeded  in  persuading  the  people  to  ostracise  some  of 
her  ablest  and  best  men,  and  to  give  hemlock  to  others.  It  was 
then  that  political  ruin  and  moral  desolation  came  upon  her. 
And  the  same  result  may  be  expected  to  come  upon  us  when  the 
same  policy  is  pursued.  When  the  words  of  wisdom  are  no 
longer  listened  to — when  the  oldest  and  most  faithful  sentinels 
upon  the  watch-towers  are  removed — when  the  principles  of  the 
constitution  are  disregarded — when  those  "checks  and  re 
straints,"  put  in  it,  as  Mr.  Madison  has  told  us,  for  "a  defence 
to  the  people  against  their  own  temporary  errors  and  delusions," 


434  SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL. 

are  broken  down  and  swept  away — when  the  whole  country  shall 
have  been  brought  under  the  influence  of  the  third  degree  of  this 
"  know-nothing"  order,  if  that  time  shall  ever  come,  then,  indeed, 
may  the  days  of  this  Republic,  too,  be  considered  as  numbered. 
And,  then,  some  wandering  bard,  in  contemplating  what  we  now 
are,  in  connection  with  what  we  shall  then  be,  may  well  exclaim, 
as  one  did  of  Greece, 

"  Shrine  of  the  mighty  !  can  it  be, 
That  this  is  all  that  remains  of  thee  !" 

I  wish  to  s&y  something  to  you  about  this  third  degree — the 
Union  degree  as  it  is  called.  For  under  this  specious  title,  name, 
or  guise,  the  arch-tempter  again  approaches  us,  quite  as  subtly  as 
under  the  other  of  "Americans  shall  rule  America."  The  obliga 
tion  taken  in  this  degree  is  "to  uphold,  maintain,  and  defend" 
the  Union,  without  one  word  being  said  about  the  constitution 
Now,  as  much  as  we  all,  I  trust,  are  devoted  to  the  Union,  who 
would  have  it  without  the  constitution  ?  This  is  the  life  and  soul 
of  it — this  is  its  animating  spirit.  It  is  this  that  gives  it  vitality, 
health,  vigor,  strength,  growth,  development,  and  power.  With 
out  it  the  Union  could  never  have  been  formed,  and  without  it, 
it  cannot  be  maintained  or  held  together.  When  the  animating 
principle  of  any  living  organism  is  extinguished,  this  is  death,  and 
dissolution  is  inevitable.  You  might  just  as  well  expect  that  the 
component  parts  of  your  bodies  could  be  held  together  by  some 
senseless  incantations  after  the  vital  spark  has  departed,  as  that 
this  Union  can  be  held  together  by  any  "know-nothing"  oaths 
when  the  constitution  is  gone.  The  basis  of  the  Union  is  the 
constitution.  The  first  degree  of  this  new  order,  I  have  shown, 
strikes  down  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  that  stately  fabric.  That 
pillar  is  religious  toleration.  It  also  strikes  at  another,  which  is 
the  principle  of  expatriation  and  naturalization.  The  second  de* 
gree  strikes  at  the  independence  of  every  freeman  who  takes  it, 
by  an  attempt  to  deprive  him  of  the  power  to  exercise  his  own 
free  will  in  the  choice  of  his  rulers.  But  the  third  is  worse  even 
still ;  for  it  proposes  that,  which,  in  effect,  would  be  to  transfer 
the  destinies  of  this  country  not  to  the  constituted  authorities 
under  the  constitution,  but  to  the  irresponsible  body  of  a  grand 
national  know-nothing  council,  whose  mandates  are  to  be  obeyed, 
and  whose  decrees  are  to  be  carried  out,  let  come  what  may. 
This  same  writer,  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  and  who  leads  the  van 
in  this  crusade  against  me,  says  in  his  reply  to  my  letter,  "  We 
would  just  as  soon  trust  our  political  destinies  in  the  hands  of  the 
national  council  of  know-nothings  as  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States."  Are  the  people  of  this  country  prepared  for 
this  ?  Are  you  prepared  for  this  ?  If  not,  "  awake,  arise,  or  be 
forever  fallen  !"  For  to  this  complexion  it  is  coming  fast.  The 
constitution  is  to  be  ignored.  It  is  to  be  done  away  with.  Con 
gress  is  to  be  done  away  with',  except  in  so  far  as  its  members 


SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL.  135 

may  be  necessary,  as  the  dumb  instruments  for  registering  the 
edicts  of  an  invisible  but  all-powerful  oligarchy.  We  are  to  have 
an  " Imperium  in  Imperio."  Our  present  government  is  to  be 
paralyzed  by  this  boa  constrictor,  which  is  now  entwining  its  coils 
around  it.  It  is  to  be  supplanted  and  displaced  by  another  self- 
constituted  and  secretly  organized  body  to  rise  up  in  its  stead — a 
political  " monster, "more terrible  to  contemplate  than  the  seven- 
headed  beast  spoken  of  in  the  Apocalypse.  Under  this  new  organ 
ization  how  would  you  stand?  Should  your  rights  be  assailed, 
or  your  lives,  liberty,  and  property  be  put  in  jeopardy,  where 
would  be  your  remedy  or  redress  ?  Under  this  third  degree,  your 
hands  would  be  tied !  Like  sheep,  you  would  be  led  to  the 
slaughter,  or  like  Sampson,  when  shorn  of  his  strength,  you  would 
be  delivered  over,  "  bound  hand  and  foot,"  to  the  Philistines. 
Your  strength  is  in  the  constitution ;  with  it  you  are  powerful 
and  invincible ;  without  it  you  are  weak  and  impotent.  Suppose 
that  during  next  Congress,  Kansas  shall  apply  for  admission  into 
the  Union,  which  is  not  improbable,  as  a  slave  State,  and  she 
should  be  rejected  in  violation  of  the  constitution  on  account  of 
slavery,  as  she  certainly  will  be  if  the  northern  know-nothings 
can  have  their  way?  For  there  is  not  a  single  know-noth 
ing  elected  to  the  next  Congress  from  the  entire  North  who  will 
vote  for  her  admission  on  such  application.  In  the  event  of  her 
rejection,  then,  what  will  you  or  can  you  do,  if  you  and  your  pub 
lic  men  are  bound  by  the  obligation  of  this  third  degree  ? 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  those  graver  and  far 
more  important  questions  which  affect  foreign-born  naturalized 
citizens.  Gen.  Shields,  one  of  these  Senators  from  Illinois,  who 
thus  maintained  the  constitution  and  our  rights  under  it,  is  a 
foreigner  himself — a  son  of  the  Emerald  Island.  His  eyes  first  saw 
the  light  in  the  land  of  Curran,  Grattan  and  Emmett ;  but  his 
feelings  on  that  account  were  not  less  ardent  for  the  institu 
tions  of  his  adopted  country.  Since  then  he  has  been  beaten, 
not  only  for  giving  that  vote,  but  because  he  was  not  born  in 
this  country ;  and  his  seat  has  been  filled  by  the  native  "  know- 
nothing,"  anti-Kansas,  free-soiler  Trumbull !  Now,  with  whom 
should  we  affiliate  politically !  With  the  gallant  Shields  and  his 
associates,  "  who  fighting  fell,  and  falling  fought"  the  battles  of 
the  constitution,  or  with  his  successor,  whose  votes  upon  all  si 
milar  questions  will  doubtless  be  hostile  to  us  ?  If  the  votes  of 
foreigners  who  are  crowding  in  the  new  States  of  the  northwest 
give  us  such  senators,  it,  in  my  opinion,  should  be  par  amount  over 
and  above  all  others  with  us  at  this  time.  For,  are  all  the  dan 
gers  which  even  by  possibility  may  be  conjectured  from  the  in 
fluence  of  Catholics  and  foreigners  in  our  country,  to  be  com 
pared  with  those  which  are  now  pressing  upon  us  ?  And  being 
pressed,  too,  by  the  leading  spirits  at  the  North  of  this  know- 
nothing  movement,  which  southern  men  are  invoked  to  join? 
On  such  questions,  involving  not  only  our  own  peace  and  quiet 


486  SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA    CITY   HALL. 

but  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  whole  countiy,  arid  the  very  ex 
istence  of  the  Union  itself,  with  whom  should  we  ally  ourselves — 
with  our  friends  or  our  enemies  ?  What  says  the  dictate  of  pa 
triotism,  good  sense,  and  duty  ?  Were  there  no  other  considera 
tions,  this  one  alone  would  be  sufficient  with  ine  in  determining 
my  course.  I  would  not  join  the  know-nothings,  if  for  no  other 
reason  but  the  odium  of  the  northern  alliance.  I  know  that  the 
effort  is  being  made  at  this  time  to  make  the  southern  people  be- 
live  that  the  foreign  vote,  as  it  is  called,  in  the  United  States,  is 
cast  with  the  abolitionists — that  foreigners,  as  fast  as  they  flock 
to  our  shores,  are  transported  to  the  northwest,  where  the}7  are 
naturalized,  and  thus  "  manufactured"  into  free-soil  voters.  This 
is  done  to  get  up  a  counter  feeling ;  but  it  will  not  do,  for  the 
fact  is  not  as  stated.  Some  foreigners  may  be  free-soilers  and 
abolitionists — and  some  doubtless  are — but  it  is  an  undeniable 
truth,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  foreign-born  voters  in  this 
country  have,  on  these  questions,  always  cast  their  votes  on  the  side 
of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South.  Coming  to  our  country 
from  distant  climes,  in  anticipation  of  the  blessings  of  good  gov 
ernment  which  they  promised  themselves  to  be  able  to  enjoy  here,  a 
large  majority  of  them  have  always  been  true  to  the  constitution 
from  which  alone  those  blessings  can  flow.  This  is  particularly  the 
case  in  the  northwest,  the  section  generally  referred  to.  To  that  sec 
tion  we  are  now  mainly  indebted  for  all  our  aid  on  constitutional 
questions.  All  New  England  gave  us  but  two  votes  for  the  Kansas 
bill  in  the  House,  and  three  in  the  Senate  ;  while  Indiana  alone  gave 
us  five  in  the  House  and  two  in  the  Senate  ;  and  Illinois  three  in  the 
House  and  two  in  the  Senate  ;  and  Iowa  one  (half  she  had)  in  the 
House  and  two  in  the  Senate.  And  every  one  of  these,  members 
as  well  as  senators,  owed  their  election,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to 
this  class  of  voters.  Jones  and  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Bright  and  Pet- 
tit  from  Indiana,  Cass  and  Stuart  from  Michigan,  Shields  and 
Douglas  from  Illinois — and  such  men  as  the  two  Aliens,  Harris 
and  Richardson  in  the  House,  from  Illinois,  are  sustained  by 
them.  Then  we  have  no  reason  to  complain  of  them  ;  nor  have 
the  true  friends  of  the  constitution  and  the  Union  in  any  part  of 
the  United  States,  any  reason  to  complain  of  them.  These  mem 
bers  and  senators  may  all  have  been  indebted  to  a  considerable 
extent  for  their  election  to  the  same  class  of  voters ;  but  they  are 
not  free-soilers,  though  they  may  be  foreigners  by  birth. 

Under  these  circumstances  then,  fellow-citizens,  what  ought 
we  to  do  ?  My  position  is  that  we  should,  without  any  regard 
to  past  or  present  party  organization,  in  a  national  point  of  view, 
stand  by  those  men  at  the  North  who  stand  by  the  constitution,  and 
who  thus  standing,  must  necessarily  stand  by  us  and  the  Union 
— be  they  native  or  naturalized,  Protestant  or  Catholic,  whig  or 
Democratic — I  do  not  include  the  northern  know-nothings,  for 
there  is  not  one  of  the  class  I  mention  in  their  crowd — no,  not 
one,  that  I  have  ever  heard  of;  but  if  there  is  I  would  embrace 
him  too.  I  know  it  has  been  asserted  that  some  of  the  Boston 


SPEECH   IN   AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL.  487 

know-nothings  are  sound  upon  these  constitutional  questions. 
And  the  same  writer  I  have  so  frequently  alluded  to,  who  re 
plied  to  my  letter,  has  said  that  thirty-one  guns  were  fired  the 
other  day,  in  Boston,  when  the  bill  of  the  know-nothing  legis 
lature  of  Massachusetts,  deposing  Judge  Loring  for  issuing  the 
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  fugitive  slave  Burns,  was  vetoed  by 
the  governor.  But  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  there  was  a  single 
know-nothing  gun  in  that  number.  They  were  doubtless  firexl 
b}r  the  same  men,  or  men  with  like  spirits,  hearts,  and  sentiments 
with  those  who  made  Boston  Common  quake  with  a  hundred 
rounds  when  the  Kansas  bill  passed.  These  are  the  men  who 
still  breathe  the  Old  Bunker  Hill  atmosphere  ;  these  are  the  men 
I  will  stand  by — they  are  true  to  the  constitution  with  all  its 
guaranties.  Men  of  like  patriotism  are  to  be  found  throughout 
the  entire  North.  And  if  the  whole  South  would  but  discrimi 
nate,  and  stand  in  solid  body  by  those  at  the  North,  and  those 
only,  who  do  stand  by  the  constitution  and  all  its  guaranties, 
then  we  should  have  nothing  to  fear,  either  for  the  Union  or  our 
rights  under  it.  This  was  the  principle  and  basis  upon  which 
the  Georgia  resolutions  of  1850,  or  the  Georgia  platform,  as  it 
is  called,  was  enacted.  Without  wishing  to  speak  much  of  my 
self,  I  may  be  permitted  to  sa}^,  as  part  of  the  history  of  the 
times,  that  I  aided  in  the  construction  of  that  platform  ;  I  was  a 
member  of  the  convention  that  formed  it ;  I  took  my  position  on 
it  then,  and  have  never  abandoned  it,  and  never  shall.  Even  be 
fore  the  convention  met — during  the  canvass  preceding  the  elec 
tion  of  members  to  it — I  advanced  the  same  principles  from  the 
same  place  I  now  stand.  There  were  many  then  whose  ardor 
and  zeal,  in  my  opinion,  were  a  little  ahead  of  the  "  sober  second 
thought" — they  were  for  something  more  energetic  ;  they  be 
lieved  that  the  whole  North  had  become  unsound  and  untrust 
worthy  ;  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  would  never  be  executed, 
and  that  the  time  for  the  South  to  act  had  come.  Others  of  us 
thought  differently.  We  told  them  that  the  fugitive  slave  law 
would  be  executed  ;  that  while  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  bills 
did  not  go  as  far  as  we  wished,  yet  they  contained  nothing  hostile 
or  directly  aggressive  upon  our  rights.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
we  had  in  them  recovered  the  great  principle  which  was  lost  by 
the  South  on  the  Missouri  question  in  1820.  That  principle,  thus 
rescued  and  recovered,  required  the  restriction  against  slaveiy 
over  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  which  had  been  resting  on  those  terri 
tories  for  thirty  years,  to  be  taken  off.  All  this  many  of  you  recol 
lect.  Well,  what  has  been  the  result  ?  The  fugitive  slave  law  is 
now  daily  executed  with  as  little  difficulty  almost  as  any  other 
act  upon  your  statute  book.  The  only  question  now,  in  regard 
to  that,  is  not  its  execution,  but  whether  it  shall  be  repealed  or 
not.  And  when  the  time  came  for  governments  to  be  orga 
nized  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  the  old  odious  and  anti-republi 
can  restriction  against  the  South,  put  on  in  1820,  was  taken  off  in 


488  SPEECH   IN  AUGUSTA   CITY   HALL. 

pursuance  to  the  principle  established  in  1850.  This  was  accom 
plished  during  the  last  Congress.  People  from  the  South  can 
now  go  to  Kansas  with  their  slaves  if  they  wish — and  many  of 
them  are  doing  so. 

In  two  elections  already  held  there,  those  who  are  in  favor  of 
slavery  are  decidedly  in  the  majority.  The  probabilities,  there 
fore,  are,  that  she  will  apply  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
•lave  State.  Shall  she  be  so  admitted  if  she  so  applies  ?  That 
is  the  great  question  which  is  now  coming  up  in  the  distance,  and 
which  must  be  paramount  to  all  others.  My  position  is  that  she 
shall.  The  position  of  the  Georgia  Resolutions  of  1850  is  not 
only  that  she  shall,  but  that  if  she  should  be  rejected  by  Congress 
because  of  slavery,  it  would  justify  resistance  on  the  part  of  the 
South.  I  so  maintained  in  1850,  I  so  maintain  now  ;  and  shall 
so  maintain  in  the  halls  of  Congress  if  you  see  fit  to  send  me  as 
your  representative  there.  The  issue  involves  a  principle  which 
the  South  ought  not,  and  cannot,  consistently  with  her  safety  and 
honor,  ever  surrender.  As  much  as  I  admire  this  government 
— as  much  as  I  am  devoted  to  the  Union,  whenever  it  puts  me 
and  mine,  or  in  other  words,  whenever  it  puts  the  people  of  the 
South  and  her  institutions  under  the  ban  of  its  proscription,  I 
shall  be  its  enemy. 

But,  are  we  or  our  institutions  in  any  such  danger,  perhaps 
some  may  be  ready  to  ask  ?  To  this  I  answer,  none  whatever, 
if  we  are  but  true  to  ourselves.  We  are,  however,  in  very  great 
danger  if  we  falter  or  blunder  at  this  time. 

The  great  struggle  will  be  on  the  admission  of  Kansas.  Let 
us  not,  then,  ally  ourselves  with  any  party,  North  or  South,  hos 
tile  to  that  measure — that  is  the  first  point  to  see  to.  Let  us,  in 
the  next  place,  act,  co-operate,  and  affiliate  in  party  associations 
with  those  men,  and  those  men  only  at  the  North,  who  sustain 
the  principles  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  and  the  princi 
ples  of  the  Georgia  Resolutions  of  1850. 

If  we  do  this,  if  the  whole  South  will  do  this,  all  will  be  safe — 
Kansas  will  be  safe — our  rights  will  be  safe — the  constitution 
will  be  safe — the  Union  will  be  safe.  And  then  if  "  know-noth- 
ingism"  and  all  other  attempts  at  unjust  class  proscription  be 
abandoned,  as  I  trust  they  will  speedily  be,  we  shall  go  on  as  we 
have  commenced,  in  that  high  career  of  national  happiness,  pros 
perity,  and  greatness,  which  all  things  in  our  past  history  so  sig 
nificantly  point  out  to  us  as  our  manifest  destiny. 

Fellow-citizens — I  am  through  with  what  I  have  to  say.  You 
have  my  views  and  opinions  fully  and  freely  given  upon  all  the 
exciting  questions  which  are  likely  to  enter  in  the  approaching 
canvass ;  with  these,  you  have  my  name  before  you  as  a  candi 
date.  Act  towards  them  and  me  on  the  clay  of  election  as  becomes 
freemen.  Do  just  what  you  may  think  in  your  own  independent 
judgments  will  be  most  conducive  to  the  interests,  peace,  honor, 
and  general  good  of  all. 


DEBATE   WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFEK.  489 

I  have  seen  it  stated  in  the  newspapers  by  some  unknown 
writer,  that  my  letter  to  Col.  Thomas  will  be  my  political  wind 
ing  sheet.  If  you  and  the  other  voters  of  the  Eighth  Congressional 
District  so  will  it,  so  let  it  be  ;  there  is  but  one  other  I  should 
prefer — and  that  is  the  constitution  of  my  country ;  let  me  first 
be  wrapt  in  this,  and  then  covered  over  with  that  letter  and  the 
principles  I  have  announced  this  night ;  and  thus  shrouded,  I 
shall  be  content  to  be  laid  away,  when  the  time  comes,  in  my  last 
resting-place,  with'out  asking  any  other  epitaph,  but  the  simple  in 
scription  carved  upon  the  head-stone  that  marks  the  spot — "Here 
sleep  the  remains  of  one  who  dared  to  tell  the  people  they  were 
wrong  when  he  believed  so,  and  who  never  intentionally  deceived 
a  friend  or  betrayed  even  an  enemy." 


DEBATE  WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFER,  OF  TENNESSEE, 
ON  THE  POWER  OF  CONGRESS  TO  ESTABLISH 
OR  PROHIBIT  SLAVERY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JANUARY  It,  1856. 

I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  House  but  for  a  few  moments.  I 
wish  to  make  some  inquiries  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Tennessee,  [Mr.  ZOLLTCOFFER,]  in  reference  to  some  remarks  made 
by  him  in  the  debate  yesterday.  He  is  reported  as  having  said : 

"  My  opinion  is,  that  the  advocates  of  the  constitutional  power  of  Con 
gress  to  establish  or  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
— though  they  may  live  in  the  South — though  they  may  profess  to  be  the 
advocates  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South — are  doing  to  the  South 
more  damage,  and  are  more  dangerous,  than  the  abolitionists  of  the 
North." 

I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  what  he  means  by 
that  declaration ;  and  also  if  he  knows  any  gentlemen,  or  any 
persons,  at  the  South,  who  advocate  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  am  pleased  that  the  gentleman  from  Geor 
gia  has  put  the  question  to  me,  and  I  shall  be  obliged  to  him,  and 
to  the  House,  not  to  confine  me  strictly  to  a  categorical  answer. 
My  conviction  is,  that  the  theory  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  has  the  constitutional  power  to  draw  a  greographical  line 
through  the  public  territories,  and  to  say  where  slavery  shall  exist, 
and  where  slavery  shall  be  prohibited  forever,  is  a  theory  giving  to 
Congress  a  power  which  the  constitution  has  never  conferred 
upon  this  body.  My  opinion  is,  that  this  theory  has  done  more 
damage  to  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  southern  States  of  the 


490  DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

Union  than  'the  open  warfare  of  northern  abolitionists  upon  the 
institutions  of  the  South.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  understood  as 
saying,  that  gentlemen  who  entertain  this  theory  of  the  constitu 
tion  are  less  patriotic  than  gentlemen  who  believe  as  I  do,  that 
the  constitution  does  not  confer  that  power ;  but  my  position  is, 
and  what  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  is,  that  the  theory  is 
an  erroneous  and  most  dangerous  one.  And  here  let  me  remark, 
that  many  gentlemen  of  the  South,  whose  patriotism  I  have  never 
doubted,  have  fallen  into  a  belief  of  this  theory ;  and  some  gen 
tlemen  have  gone  so  far  as  to  demand  that  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  should  mark  out  the  line  dividing  the  territory  be 
tween  the  North  and  the  South,  and  thereby  determine  forever 
where  slavery  should  go,  and  where  it  should  be  prohibited.  But 
I  am  gratified  that  many  of  those  gentlemen  have  changed  their 
opinions. 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia  [Mr.  STEPHENS]  asks  me  to  point 
him  to  a  man  of  the  South  who  entertains  such  opinions.  I  would 
say  to  him  that  my  understanding  is,  that  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  himself  [Mr.  STEPHENS]  has,  upon  the  floor  of  this  House, 
maintained,  with  regard  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico, 
that  unless  Congress  would  extend  the  Missouri  compromise  line 
to  the  Pacific — would,  by  a  geographical  line  divide  the  territory, 
and  determine  forever  where  slavery  should  exist,  and  where  it 
should  be  prohibited,  that  he  had  no  other  alternative  than  to 
return  the  territory  to  Mexico.  "  Let  us  keep  our  money  which 
is  to  be  paid  for  it,"  said  he,  "  and  let  Mexico  keep  her  provinces 
and  her  people."  That  was  his  position  as  I  understood  it.  I  am 
gratified  that  the  gentleman  who  then  warred  against  the  princi 
ple  of  "  non-intervention "  has  changed  his  opinion,  and  now 
stands  before  the  country  as  an  advocate  of  the  principle  of  "  non 
intervention  "  by  the  federal  government  with  the  territories  of 
the  Union,  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  My  opinion  is,  that  the 
new  States,  to  be  carved  out  of  the  public  territories,  when  they 
shall  be  admitted  into  this  Union,  should  come  in  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  the  old  States,  under  the  plain  letter  of  the  consti 
tution — that  they  should  come  in  full-fledged,  with  all  power  for 
determining  their  fundamental  and  constitutional  laws,  as  is  con 
ceded  to  the  old  States  of  the  Union.  I  repeat,  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  gentlemen  who  entertain  the  opinions  I  ascribe  to 
him  are  less  patriotic  than  those  who  embrace  the  principle  of 
non-intervention ;  but  I  mean  to  say  that  such  opinions  are  more 
dangerous  to  the  South,  particularly  when  presented  by  southern 
gentlemen,  than  when  presented  by  open  and  avowed  aboli 
tionists. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken  in  attributing  to  me 
any  such  position  or  opinions  as  he  seems,  from  the  record  he 
refers  to,  inclined  to  assign  me.  I  did  not  then,  or  ever,  advocate 
the  constitutional  power  in  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
territories ;  but  I  maintained  that  upon  the  principle  of  compro 


DEBATE   WITH   ME.   ZOLLICOFFEB.  491 

mise  I  should  be  satisfied  with  nothing  but  a  fair  division  of  this 
territory.  I  have  always,  and  I  do  now  maintain,  as  an  original 
question,  that  the  territories  of  the  United  States  are  the  com 
mon  domain,  in  which  the  people  of  all  the  States  have  an  equal 
interest ;  and  that  the  people  of  the  States  who  choose  to  settle 
them  should  determine  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves, 
as  they  please,  when  they  come  to  form  their  State  constitutions. 
But  when  the  North  would  not  permit  the  South  to  enjoy  all  in 
common,  to  colonize  all  in  common,  and  to  settle  all  in  common, 
without  restriction,  then  only  on  the  principle  of  division,  as  an 
alternative,  would  I  compromise  the  question  at  all.  Now,  sir • 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER,  (interrupting.)  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  allow  me  to  read  his  declared  opinions  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Not  now.  I  know  all  about  my  declared  opin 
ions.  I  do  not  wish  to  have  my  time  now  taken  up  by  reading. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.    Yery  well,  sir. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  If  the  gentleman  has  any  thing  there  in  contra 
diction  to  what  I  say  I  will,  when  I  get  through,  hear  him  read 
it ;  but  I  do  not  wish  now  to  be  diverted  from  other  points.  The 
gentleman  stated  to  the  House,  when  he  began,  that  those  gen 
tlemen  who  voted  for  the  Missouri  line — the  geographical  line — 
where  slavery  might  exist,  and  where  it  should  not,  were  more 
dangerous  to  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  South  than  the 
abolitionists  of  the  North.  Does  he  believe  that  those  men  who 
in  1820 — when  the  South  was  pressed  to  the  wall — when  they 
took  that  measure  only  as  an  alternative — when  the  North  in 
sisted  on  .having  every  foot  of  the  country,  and  when  only  by  a 
small  majority,  the  South  reluctantly  took  this  line,  in  lieu  of 
total  prohibition — does  he  believe,  I  ask,  that  those  men  were 
more  dangerous  to  the  South  than  the  abolitionists  of  the  North 
were  ?  Does  he  say  that  your  Lowndeses  and  Clays,  with  a 
majority  of  the  southern  members,  were  more  dangerous  to  the 
rights  and  interests  of  the  South  and  the  peace  of  the  country 
than  the  avowed  abolitionists  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Perhaps  the  gentleman  does  not  understand 
me.  I  again  repeat,  and  I  wish  to  be  properly  understood,  that 
this  theory  has  done  more  damage  and  is  more  dangerous  to  the 
constitutional  rights  of  the  South  than  the  open  efforts  of  aboli 
tionists.  Many  patriotic  men  at  the  period  to  which  the  gentleman 
alludes,  fell,  as  I  believe,  into  the  error  in  submitting  to  what  they 
regarded  as  the  smaller  of  two  evils,  namely :  in  admitting  that  the 
federal  government  has  the  power  to  bind  the  States  which  are  yet 
to  be  formed  out  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States  in  the  charac 
ter  of  their  domestic  institutions  forever.  I  feel  that  that  theory 
is  more  dangerous  to  the  South  than  the  open  warfare  of  the 
abolitionists. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  I  wish  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  to 
state  what  theory  he  means  ?  Does  he  know  any  southern  man, 
in  the  beginning,  in  the  middle,  or  down  to  the  present,  or  at  any 


4:92  DEBATE  WITH   ME.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

time  in  the  progress  of  this  controversy,  who  ever  entertained 
such  a  theory  as  he  speaks  of?  And  does  he  know  of  any  south 
ern  man  who  ever  voted  for  a  division  of  the  public  domain, 
except  as  an  alternative  ?  Did  the  offer  to  divide  even  originate 
with  southern  men  ?  Has  it  ever  been  defended  by  southern  men, 
except  as  an  alternative  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  If  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  will  allow 
me,  I  will  read  an  extract  from  his  speech  in  1850,  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Now,  sir,  you  may  read  it. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  On  the  13th  of  June,  1850,  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Georgia  is  reported,  in  the  Globe,  as  saying : 

"Ihave/rom  the  beginning  been,  as  the  gentleman  from  Mississippi 
says  he  is,  in  favor  of  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  or 
some  other  fair  and  just  division  of  the  territory.  But  I  want  no  division 
which  will  not  give  as  ample  protection  and  security  to  the  South  in  the 
enjoyment  of  her  portion,  as  it  does  to  the  North.  The  extension  of  the 
Missouri  compromise,  without  the  recognition  of  slavery  south  of  that 
line  and  all  necessary  protection,  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  a  perfect 
mockery  of  right,  just  as  much  so  as  the  doctrine  of  '  non-intervention.' 
This  was  my  position  two  years  ago  upon  this  floor,  and  upon  which  I 
then  declared  I  should  stand  or  fall.  I  hold  that,  upon  the  acquisition  of 
these  territories,  their  government  devolved  upon  Congress,  and  that  it 
was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  all  necessary  laws  for  the  fair  and  equal 
enjoyment  of  them  by  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  or  such  of  them 
as  might  go  there  with  their  property  of  every  description. 

"As  a  difference  of  opinion  exists  between  the  North  and  South 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  I  thought,  and  still  think,  that  for  the  pur 
pose  of  such  just  and  equal  enjoyment,  a  division  of  the  territory  would 
be  best.  TJiat  Congress  had  power  to  pass  all  such  laws  I  never  doubted 
— indeed  I  was  amazed  at  the  position  of  those  who  claime^  the  constitu 
tional  right  to  carry  and  hold  slaves  there,  and  yet  denied  to  Congress 
the  power  to  pass  laws  for  the  protection  of  these  rights.  The  doctrine 
of '  non-intervention1  denied  that  power." 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  and  I  indorse  every  word  of  that 
now. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  House  to  permit 
me  to  conclude  my  remarks. 

The  GLERK.  There  being  no  objection,  the  gentleman  is  at 
liberty  to  proceed. 

Mr.  READE.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  single  question,  so  that  I  may  be  sure  I  understand  him 
correctly. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     Certainly. 

Mr.  READE.  I  want  to  ascertain  whether  I  understood  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia,  in  the  extract  just  read  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Tennessee,  to  have  spoken  of  the  principle  of  non-in 
tervention  as  a  mockeiy  ?  I  want  to  understand  that  extract 
correctly.  Did  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  speak  of  the  princi 
ple  of  non-intervention  as  a  mockery  ? 


DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER.  493 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  That  is  what  I  understand  his  language  to 
amount  to. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  One  at  a  time — and  one  thing  at  a  time,  Mr. 
Clerk.  What  I  wish  the  House  right  here  to  understand  clearly, 
is  this  :  "  Non-intervention,"  as  the  word  was  used  at  that  time 
by  me,  was  a  term  altogether  different  in  its  meaning,  and  import, 
and  practical  effect  from  the  same  word  as  it  has  more  recently 
been  used  on  this  floor  and  elsewhere.  At  the  time  of  the  acqui 
sition  of  Mexican  territory,  there  were  local  laws — as  I  under 
stood  them — prohibiting  slavery.  I  held  it  to  be  the  duty  of 
Congress  then,  to  annul  those  laws,  and  to  open  up  all  the  terri 
tory  to  the  free  and  unrestricted  colonization  of  the  people  of  all 
the  States  of  the  Union.  There  was  then  already  "intervention" 
against  us.  Non-intervention  over  that  territory  at  that  time 
would  have  been  exclusion,  particularly  in  connection  with  the 
idea  that  the  people  there  should  never  be  permitted  to  change 
the  existing  status,  as  I  showed  in  that  speech  from  which  the 

fentleman  has  read  an  extract,  or  some  other,  or  at  least  thought 
showed.  This  was  my  opinion  upon  a  question,  however,  on 
which  southern  men  differed.  But  it  is  proper  for  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  READE],  and  the  House,  to  understand 
the  import  with  which  the  term  "  non-intervention"  was  used  by 
me  in  that  speech.  It  was  that  "  non-intervention"  which,  in  my 
judgment,  would  have  absolutely  excluded  a  portion  of  the  people 
of  the  Union  from  a  just  and  fair  participation  in  the  use  of  com 
mon  territory,  and  I  wished  all  to  be  equal  participators  therein. 

Now,  sir*  in  that  speech  from  which  the  gentleman  has  read,  I 
was  speaking  of  a  settlement  of  this  controverted  question  on  the 
principle  of  division,  as  the  people  of  the  North  could  not  in  jus 
tice  be  permitted  to  take  the  whole  territory — every  foot  of  it, 
north,  south,  east,  and  west,  which  they  were  claiming,  and 
seemed  determined  to  have.  My  theory  was,  and  the  whole 
southern  theory  was,  as  I  understood  it,  as  an  original  question, 
to  leave  the  whole  territory  free  to  colonization  by  all  alike,  and 
without  restriction  anywhere.  But,  sir,  when  we  were  forced  to 
the  wall,  when  we  were  outvoted  by  a  large  majority  from  the 
North,  when  we  had  no  hopes  of  getting  that  theory  of  ours  real 
ized,  then  we  were  willing,  as  I  said,  in  consequence  of  this  sec 
tional  disagreement,  as  an  alternative,  to  have  the  territory 
divided  with  the  same  guarantee  against  the  previous  interven 
tion  against  us  on  one  side  of  the  line,  to  the  people  of  the  South, 
as  there  was  on  the  other  side  to  the  people  of  the  North. 

The  House  will  indulge  me  also  in  another  idea.  In  the  speech 
to  which  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  has  alluded,  he  quotes  me 
as  having  expressed  astonishment  as  to  the  power  of  Congress  to 
do  what  I  thought  ought  to  be  done  ;  that  is,  to  institute  govern 
ments  for  the  territories,  and  to  effect  what  I  desired.  Now  on 
this  subject,  in  both  aspects  of  it,  there  was  a  division  of  senti 
ment  as  well  North  as  South.  I  held  that  Congress  had  power 


494  DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

to  govern  or  to  provide  governments,  and  to  pass  such  laws  as 
were  necessary  to  give  security  to  slave  property,  which  some, 
holding  the  doctrine  of  "  non-intervention,"  as  then  used  and  un 
derstood,  denied.  I  was  amazed  at  some  gentlemen  who  held 
that  by  virtue  of  the  constitution  alone  we  could  hold  slaves  in 
the  territories,  and  yet  denied  the  power  to  protect  them.  I 
hold  the  same  sentiments  now.  I  held  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Con 
gress  to  protect  slave  property  as  well  as  other  property  in  the 
common  territory  of  the  United  States,  just  as  it  might  protect 
any  other  kind  of  property.  That  is  what  I  held  to  be  the  power 
and  duty  of  Congress.  I  did  not  hold  that  it  had  the  unqualified 
power  to  prohibit.  Now  I  ask  the  gentleman  again,  does  he  know 
any  man  in  the  southern  county  who  advocates,  or  even  defends, 
the  unlimited  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  territories  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Georgia, 
whether  in  1848  he  did  not,  on  this  floor,  take  the  position,  with 
reference  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  that  there  were  but 
two  courses  to  pursue  ;  that  there  were  but  two  alternatives  with 
him.  I  ask  him  if  he  did  not  state,  that  unless  the  federal  govern 
ment  extended  the  Missouri  compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  ocean, 
so  that  slavery  should  exist  forever  on  one  side  of  the  line,  and 
should  not  exist  on  the  other,  his  only  alternative  was  to  return 
the  territory  to  Mexico  ?  I  ask  him  if  he  did  not  demand  that 
Congress  should  not  merely  protect  slavery  in  the  territory  on 
one  side  of  a  geographical  line,  but  should  prohibit  it  on  the 
other  ?  I  ask  him  if  he  did  not  demand  that,  and  demand  it  as  the 
only  alternative  to  the  returning  the  territory  to  Mexico  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Only,  Mr.  Clerk,  by  way  of  compromise. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.     Ah ! 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  was  only  as  a  compromise  that  I  would  agree 
to  or  demanded  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line,  recognizing 
and  protecting  slavery  south  of  the  line  as  well  as  excluding  it 
north.  This  was  the  only  plan  of  division,  itself  an  alternative, 
that  I  would  agree  to.  I  was  then  in  favor  of  running  that  line 
through  to  the  Pacific — not  as  an  original  proposition,  but  as  an 
alternative — to  settle  the  question  upon  some  principles  of  justice, 
as  the  South  and  North  differed  upon  slavery,  and  the  North,  so 
far  from  letting  the  South  have  the  free  common  use  of  all,  seemed 
bent  upon  not  letting  her  have  any.  But  the  North  would  not  agree, 
then,  even  to  that — they  would  not  divide.  An  overwhelming 
majority  in  this  House  were  opposed  to  it.  On  the  15th  day  of 
January,  184*7,  a  large,  an  overwhelming  majority  in  this  House 
repudiated  the  adoption  of  that  line  by  way  of  settlement — a  line, 
or  a  principle  rather,  which  the  South  was  forced  to  adopt  in  1820, 
not  as  a  theory  of  her  own,  but  as  her  only  alternative. 

Now,  Mr.  Clerk,  I  voted  in  1848,  as  all  the  men  from  the  South 
upon  this  floor  voted,  to  extend  that  line  to  the  Pacific  coast.  It 
was  no  measure  of  our  choice. 


DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER.  495 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  suppose  I  do  not  misunderstand  the  gentle 
man  from  Georgia.  I  now  understand  him  to  express  the  opinion 
that  the  Federal  government  has  no  constitutional  power  to  re 
strict  slavery  in  any  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States ;  yet, 
in  a  spirit  of  compromise,  he  was  willing,  in  this  instance,  that 
the  constitution  should  be  violated  in  the  measure  proposing  to 
restrict  slavery  in  half  the  territoiy,  and  that  the  Federal  govern 
ment  should  thus  do  what  the  constitution  itself  prohibited. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir,  I  hold  no  such  doctrine.  The  gentle 
man  can  assign  me  no  such  position.  I  voted  to  extend  the  line 
as  an  alternative ;  but  I  did  not  hold,  nor  do  I  now  hold,  that  I 
violated  the  constitution  in  thus  voting.  And  I  want  to  know 
of  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  if  he  would  not  have  voted  for 
the  extension  of  that  line  if  he  had  been  here  ?  When  the  whole 
South  united  in  agreeing  to  extend  the  line  as  an  alternative,  by 
way  of  compromise,  in  1848,  I  want  to  know  of  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee — and  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  his 
answer — whether  he  would  not,  if  he  had  been  here,  have  voted 
with  the  South  for  that  extension  ?  Would  the  gentleman,  or 
would  he  not  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Mr.  Clerk,  it  will  be  remembered  that  when 
this  little  sparring  between  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  and 
myself  commenced 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do  not  yield  to  the  gentleman,  except  to 
answer  my  question. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  will  give  the  gentleman  a  direct  answer. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Very  well ;  go  on. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  say  it  will  be  remembered  that  this  little 
sparring  between  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  and  myself  grew 
out  of  the  fact,  that  when  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
[Mr.  FULLER,]  for  whom  I  have  been  voting  as  a  candidate  for 
speaker,  denned  his  position  the  other  day — when  he  announced 
himself  as  occupying  the  high  national  position  which  he  did,  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia  rose  and  complimented  him  upon  having 
revised  his  opinions  and  corrected  his  position  before  the  House 
and  country.  I  confess,  sir,  that  I  could  not  help  supposing 
that  those  compliments  were  ironically  tendered,  and  I  stated, 
in  reply,  that  it  would  be  well  to  remember  that  other  gentle 
men  had  corrected  their  positions  besides  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania. 

And  now,  sir,  in  reply  to  the  interrogatory  of  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia,  I  have  to  say  that  from  the  day  of  that  crisis  in 
1850,  when  I  saw  what  I  saw  in  the  Nashville  Southern  conven 
tion,  as  it  was  called — when  I  saw  that  body  demanding  the  ex 
tension  of  the  Missouri  compromise  line  to  the  Pacific — when  I 
saw  that  body  advocating  the  exercise  by  the  Federal  govern 
ment  of  the  power  to  prohibit  and  permit  the  extension  of  slavery 
upon  the  respective  sides  of  a  certain  geographical  line  through 
the  territories  belonging  to  the  government,  a  power  that  I  felt 


196  DEBATE   WITH   ME.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

was  not  delegated  by  the  constitution — when  I  saw  that  position 
taken  by  the  extreme  men  of  the  South,  sir,  I  planted  myself 
upon  the  position,  that  the  people  of  the  territories,  when  they 
come  to  form  State  governments  for  themselves,  had  the  sole  right 
to  determine  for  themselves  whether  they  would  have  slavery  or 
not. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  has  not  answered  my  question. 
I  ask  again  whether  in  1848,  when  the  proposition  was  sent  down 
from  the  Senate  proposing  to  extend  the  Missouri  line  to  the 
Pacific  coast,  would  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  have  voted 
for  it  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Well,  Mr.  Clerk,  I  will  answer  the  gentle 
man  in  this  way 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  cannot  give  the  gentleman  my  time  except  for 
a  direct  answer  to  my  question.  I  want  to  know  whether,  when 
Congress  was  providing  governments  for  the  territories  acquired 
from  Mexico,  he  would,  if  he  had  been  here,  have  voted  for  the 
extension  of  the  Missouri  line  through  those  territories  or  not  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  time  has  been,  Mr.  Clerk,  when  the 
great  body  of  men  at  the  South,  for  the  sake  of  choosing  what 
they  considered  the  smaller  of  two  evils,  had  fallen  in  with  this 
Missouri  compromise  line ;  but,  sir,  my  own  opinion  is,  that  had  I 
at  that  time  occupied  a  seat  upon  this  floor  I  should  have  felt  it  to 
be  my  duty  to  investigate  the  subject  with  care,  and  to  vote  delib 
erately  upon  that  investigation  ;  and  that  I  should  have  voted  to 
sustain  the  principles  recognized  in  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  My  question  is,  would  the  gentleman  have  voted 
for  the  Missouri  compromise  line  at  the  time  I  have  stated  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  My  answer  is,  that  I  would  have  voted  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  compromise  acts  of  1850, 
to  leave  the  people  of  the  territories  to  determine  the  question 
of  slavery  for  themselves,  when  they  came,  to  form  a  State 
government. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  said  he  would  give  me  a  direct 
answer.  He  has  not.  Now  I  wish  to  put  to  the  gentleman  from 
Tennessee  another  question — that  is,  whether,  when  those  South 
ern  men  he  has  spoken  of,  before  they  got  the  principles  of  1850, 
now  carried  out  in  the  Kansas  bill,  chose  the  less  instead  of  the 
greater  evil,  as  he  has  said,  when  every  man  from  Tennessee, 
every  man  from  Georgia,  every  man  from  South  Carolina,  in  a 
word,  every  man,  whig  and  democrat,  south  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line,  voted  for  that  measure,  were  they  acting  upon  a 
theory  more  dangerous  to  the  South  than  abolitionism  itself? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  principles  of  1850  and  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  were  then  urged,  and  are  as  old  as  the  constitu 
tion.  I  -repeat  what  I  stated  at  the  very  outset,  and  I  do  not 
mean  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  those  gentlemen  were  less 
patriotic  in  their  motives  than  those  who  understood,  as  the  gen- 


DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER.  497 

tleman  from  Georgia  now  understands,  the  principle  of  non-inter 
vention  in  the  Nebraska  and  Kansas  bill,  or  that  their  theory  was 
more  dangerous  than  abolitionism  itself;  but  I  say,  nevertheless, 
that  the  theory,  whoever  may  entertain  it,  that  the  power  exists 
in  the  Federal  government  to  determine  forever,  for  the  States 
to  be  formed  out  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  the  fun 
damental  constitutional  principles  of  those  States — to  determine 
whether  slavery  shall  exist  there  or  not — is  a  theory  more  dan 
gerous  to  the  South  than  the  overt  movements  of  abolitionism 
itself. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  here  to  defend  that  theory  so  far  as  my 
action  under  it  is  concerned.  I  say  it  was  a  wise  theory,  looking 
to  the  peace  of  the  country  under  the  circumstances.  I  say  it 
was  a  just  theory  so  far  as  it  was  founded  on  the  principle  of  a 
fair  division  of  the  territory,  but  it  was  not,  nor  is  now,  any 
favorite  theory  of  mine.  I  preferred  another — the  principle  es 
tablished  in  1850.  Still,  there  was  nothing  so  aggressive  in  it 
as  that  the  country  might  not  have  been  satisfied  with  it  if  it  had 
been  abided  by.  I  acted  on  it  only  as  an  alternative.  Nor  do  I 
hold  that  the  whole  South  in  adhering  to  it  were  more  dangerous 
to  themselves  than  abolitionism  itself.  Nor,  sir,  do  I  hold  that 
a  division  of  territory,  as  stated,  violates  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  This  I  say,  while  I  also  maintain  that  the  con 
stitution  gives  to  Congress  no  original  or  substantive  power  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  of  this  country.  The  gentle 
man  cannot  find  in  any  remarks  that  I  have  ever  made,  that  I 
have  advocated  the  existence  of  any  such  power.  I  never  have 
entertained  any  such  opinion.  I  have  always  warred  against  i1^ 
from  the  beginning. 

I  have  always  maintained  that  this  theory  of  the  creation  of 
territorial  governments  was  outside  the  contemplation  of  the 
constitution.  It  rests  upon  a  power  resulting  from  the  acquisi 
tion  of  territory  which  the  constitution  never  contemplated. 
But  when  acquired,  the  duty  devolves  upon  Congress  either  to 
govern  it  or  to  provide  a  government  for  it.  And  in  governing 
or  providing  governments,  Congress  has  no  power,  either  express 
or  implied,  direct  or  incidental,  to  pass  any  law  which  would  de 
prive  any  portion  of  the  people  of  the  several  States  of  their  right 
to  a  just  and  fair  participation  in  the  public  domain.  But  a  law 
or  regulation,  looking  to  the  disposition  of  the  public  domain  as 
common  property,  based  upon  the  principle  of  division  between 
the  two  sections,  disagreeing,  as  they  do,  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery,  I  hold,  may  be  constitutional,  or,  at  least,  not  violative 
of  it.  While  the  exercise,  therefore,  of  such  power  by  a  general 
exclusion  would  be  wholly  unconstitutional,  yet,  under  circum 
stances  qualified  as  I  have  stated,  it  might  be  properly  exercised. 
As  I  understood  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  RICH 
ARDSON]  to  hold,  the  other  day,  the  exercise  of  this  power  may  or 
might  be  perfectly  consistent  with  the  constitution,  just,  and 
32 


498  DEBATE  WITH   MR,   ZOLLICOFFER. 

proper  in  one  instance,  and  wholly  inconsistent  with  it,  unjust, 
and  improper  in  another. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Mr.  Clerk,  I  desire  to  say,  that  if  I  have  not 
done  justice  in  every  respect  to  the  position  taken  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Georgia,  on  a  former  occasion,  I  desire  now  to  do  so. 
I  sent,  some  fifteen  minutes  ago,  to  the  Congressional  library  for 
a  copy  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  containing  the  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  to  which  I  have  referred,  upon 
which  the  statement  I  have  made,  as  to  his  position,  was  predi 
cated.  I  have  not  yet  received  it.  I  hope  to  receive  it  presently, 
and  then  I  will  give  to  the  House  the  record  upon  which  I  based 
my  opinion. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  misapprehends  me  if  he  sup 
poses  that  I  ever  held  the  idea  or  opinion  that  Congress  has  the 
general  or  unlimited  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  territo 
ries  of  the  United  States.  Never,  sir  ;  but  I  have  held,  and  I  do 
hold  now,  that  the  power  in  organizing  governments  and  dispos 
ing  of  the  common  territory  can  be  properly  and  constitutionally 
exercised  on  the  principles  of  a  fair  division.  The  gentleman 
seems  to  belong  to  a  class  of  men  who  argue  that  if  Congress 
can  exclude  slavery  from  a  part,  on  the  principles  I  speak  of,  it 
could  therefore  exclude  it  from  all  the  territories. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  That  is  the  position  of  the  gentleman's  can 
didate  for  the  speakership,  as  announced  last  Frida}7  in  his  place, 
that  if  you  can  exercise  power  over  a  part  of  the  territory,  you 
can  over  the  whole  of  the  territory. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir.  I  indorse  every  word  that  the  gentle 
man  from  Illinois  has  said  on  this  subject.  He  says  that  he 
voted  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  and  that 
he  did  not  think  in  doing  so  that  he  was  violating  the  constitu 
tion.  I  think  so  too.  He  says  that  the  exercise  of  the  power, 
other  than  by  compromise,  or  a  fair  division  of  territory,  would 
be  wrong  and  unjust,  and  violatiue,  if  not  of  the  letter,  at  least  of 
the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  So  I  say  too.  And  why  would  it 
in  my  opinion  be  unconstitutional  to  exclude  slavery  from  all 
the  territories  ?  The  constitution  is  silent  on  the  subject  of  the 
government  of  the  territories.  I  have  always  maintained  that 
the  power  was  an  incident  and  resulting  one';  and  as  I  look  on 
all  resulting  powers,  this  one  is  to  be  fairly  and  justly  exercised. 
When  exercised  in  that  way,  I  hold  that  it  is  constitutional.  If 
not,  it  is  wrong  and  unjust,  and  tantamount  to  a  violation  of  an 
express  provision  of  the  constitution.  It  is  a  violation  of  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  because  of  its  injustice. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  If  Congress  has  the  power  to  exclude  slavery 
from  one  half  of  the  territory,  has  it  not  the  power  to  exclude  it 
from  all  the  territory  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir.  That  is  the  point.  It  would  be  unjust ; 
and  for  that  very  reason  no  such  power  of  general  exclusion  could 
be  properly  exercised.  The  government  of  the  United  States, 


DEBATE   WITH   ME.   ZOLLICOFFEE.  499 

under  the  operation  of  the  revenue  laws,  and  not  within  the  pur 
view  or  contemplation  of  any  of  the  granted  powers  of  the  govern 
ment,  acquired  a  surplus  revenue.  It  was  never  contemplated  by 
the  constitution  that  such  a  fund  should  be  amassed.  A  distri 
bution  of  the  fund  fairly  and  justly  between  all  the  States,  I  hold, 
was  perfectly  constitutional.  But  suppose  the  North  had  said, 
"  Here  is  a  case  outside  of  the  constitution.  There  is  not  a  word  in 
that  instrument  on  the  subject.  The  fund  has  been  unexpectedly 
acquired  under  the  operation  of  the  government ;  but  it  shall  not  be 
divided  among  all  the  States  equally ;  it  shall  be  taken  exclusively 
by  those  where  slavery  does  not  exist ;  that  no  slavehol^ing  State 
shall  touch  a  dollar  of  it."  Would  that  have  been  constitutional  ? 

This  is  an  apt  case  in  point  of  illustration,  for  the  constitution 
is  silent  on  the  subject.  It  was  never  contemplated  by  that  in 
strument  that  a  surplus  fund  should  be  accumulated  ;  but  such  a 
fund  did  accumulate,  and  may  again.  The  power  of  distribution 
was  a  resulting  power,  and,  when  fairly  and  justly  exercised,  was 
constitutional.  I  do  not  now  discuss  the  expediency  of  the  dis 
tribution,  but  the  constitutionality  of  it.  I  do  not  doubt  that  it 
was  constitutional  if  the  distribution  was  fair  and  just,  but  it 
would  have  been  nothing  short  of  usurpation  for  the  North  to 
have  taken  the  whole  of  it.  That  is  my  answer,  and  so  with  the 
territories.  Here  was  an  acquisition  of  public  domain,  which  the 
constitution  never  looked  to  or  provided  for,  made  by  the  com 
mon  treasure,  by  the  common  blood  of  northern  men  and  southern 
men — men  from  all  sections  contributed  in  acquiring  it.  In  some 
States  slavery  existed,  in  others  it  did  not ;  and  was  it  not  right 
that  the  people  of  all  the  States  should  have  an  equal  enjoyment 
of,  or  a  just  and  fair  participation  in,  this  public  domain  ?  Just 
as  in  the  case  of  the  surplus  fund ;  when  that  fund  came  to  be 
divided,  it  would  have  been  monstrous,  and  unjust,  and  violative 
of  the  constitution — of  its  spirit,  if  not  of  its  letter — if  the  distri 
bution  had  not  been  an  equal  and  a  fair  one. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  have  at  length  been  able  to  obtain,  and  will 
read  the  extract  on  which  I  based  my  opinion  of  the  gentleman's  po 
sition.  My  object  in  doing  so,  at  this  time,  is  merely  to  show  that 
I  had  no  purpose  to  misunderstand  or  misrepresent  him.  I  call 
attention  to  the  following  extract  of  a  speech  delivered  by  the 
gentleman  in  1848,  on  the  floor  of  this  House. 

"  I  have  no  objection  to  compromising  the  question,  but  I  have  only  two 
plans  of  compromise  ;  one  is,  a,  fair  division  of  the  territory  by  fair  and 
distinct  lines,  by  which  every  one  may  know  exactly  to  what  extent  his 
rights  will  be  protected.  I  care  not  much  whether  it  be  by  an  extension 
of  the  Missouri  line,  or  whether  it  be  by  adopting  as  a  line  one  of  the  moun 
tain  ranges,  giving  the  South  all  on  this  side  and  the  North  all  on  the 
other.  I  am,  however,  rather  in  favor  of  the  latter ;  but  shall  insist  on 
some  fair  and  just  division.  That  is  one  plan  of  compromise  I  shall  favor ; 
and  if  I  cannot  get  that,  I  have  but  one  other  to  offer,  and  that  is,  to  reject 
the  territory  altogether.  Let  us  keep  our  money  which  is  to  be  paid  for  it, 
and  le*  Mexico  keep  her  provinces  and  her  people." 


500  DEBATE   WITH    MR.    ZOLLICOFFER. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  sir 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Let  me  proceed. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Show  in  what  I  differed  then  from  what  I  now 
state.  Why  do  you  bring  my  records  to  back  what  I  now  say  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  do  not  say  that  it  differs  from  what  the  gen 
tleman  has  said  in  the  last  few  minutes  ;  but  there  does  seem  to  me 
to  be  some  difference  between  it  and  the  non-intervention  banner 
which  he  so  boldly  flaunted  on  yesterday. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Not  at  all,  sir.  Permit  me  to  repeat  just  here 
that  my  original  view  was,  that  Congress  should  not  interfere  or 
intervene,  against  us ;  that  Congress  should  leave  the  common 
territory  free  and  open  to  colonization  by  all  alike.  This  was 
what  I  desired ;  this  is  what  we  have  now  got.  But  when  that 
speech  was  made,  this  hope  was  a  foregone  conclusion;  the  hand 
of  Congress  against  us  could  not  be  stayed.  None  of  us  ex 
pected,  if  the  territory  should  be  acquired,  that  intervention 
against  us  by  Congress  in  some  way  or  other  could  be  prevented. 
We  were  voted  down.  I,  however,  was  still  willing,  as  an  alter 
native,  to  compromise  on  the  old  principle  of  division ;  but  if  I 
could  not  get  even  that,  then  my  last  alternative  was  not  to  take 
the  territory.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  RICHARDSON] 
and  the  senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  DOUGLAS],  and  a  few  more,  not 
exceeding  half  a  dozen,  I  believe,  were  the  only  gentlemen  from 
the  entire  North  who  voted  to  give  us  any  showing  at  all — men 
who  seem  to  be  now  hunted  down.  While  the  gentleman  is  read 
ing  me  a  lecture  in  reference  to  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania,  to  which  I  will  reply,  his  whole  argument  seems  to 
be  to  hunt  down  Mr.  RICHARDSON. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  think  that  assumption  a  little  unkind  to  me. 
I  feel  that  such  is  not  my  wish ;  but  that,  when  southern  men 
seem  to  be  hunting  down  sound  and  national  men  of  the  North, 
who  stand  with  me,  both  sides  of  the  question  should  go  before 
the  people. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Let  me  go  on,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  will  say  that  I  now  understand  the  gentle 
man's  position  to  be  somewhat  different  from  what  I  supposed. 
I  understand  that,  as  a  matter  of  compromise,  he  was  willing  to 
see  this  geographical  line  run  to  the  Pacific ;  that  slavery  should 
exist  on  one  side,  and  be  excluded  from  the  other.  I  now  under 
stand  him  to  say  that  he  believes  that  Congress  has  power  to 
make  this  disposition. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  And  I  understand  him  at  the  same  time  to 
say  that,  while  Congress  has  power  to  prohibit  slavery  from  one 
half  of  the  territory,  it  has  not  the  power  to  prohibit  it  from 
three  quarters.  This,  I  must  confess,  to  me  is  inexplicable. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  may  be  so  to  the  gentleman;  it  does  not 
seem  so  to  me.  I  say  that  there  is  no  violation  of  constitutional 
power  to  divide  fairly  and  justly,  but  it  would  be  violative  of 


DEBATE  WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFER.          501 

every  just  principle  of  the  constitution  to  take  the  whole.  If 
that  is  inexplicable  to  the  gentleman,  I  suppose  it  will  not  so 
appear  to  others.  I  suppose  that  this  was  the  view  of  all  the 
gentlemen  from  the  South  acting  with  me  on  the  extension  of  the 
Missouri  line ;  at  least,  it  is  the  ground  upon  which  I  stood. 

Now,  Mr.  Clerk,  I  am  willing  that  the  gentleman  shall  search 
all  my  records,  and  bring  them  up  here  and  read  them.  I  think 
that,  upon  this  point,  the  gentleman  will  find  that  I  have  never 
changed  sides,  or  positions,  or  opinions.  If  I  were  to  do  it,  I 
would  not  hesitate  to  avow  it ;  I  wish  the  gentleman  to  know 
that.  But  I  wish  the  country  also  to  know  that  my  opinions 
upon  this  point,  so  far  as  I  am  a  proper  judge  of  them,  have  been 
the  same  since  I  first  came  to  Congress,  and  just  such  as  I  enter 
tained  before  I  came  here.  The  position  of  the  South  from  the 
beginning  was,  that  Congress  ought  not  to  interfere  or  intervene 
against  us  upon  this  subject.  That  is  my  position,  and  always 
was,  as  an  original  question.  That  was  the  southern  ground 
anterior  to  the  Missouri  restriction  in  1820.  That  was  only  sup 
ported  by  southern  men  as  an  alternative.  It  was  when  the 
South  was  voted  down  by  the  North,  and  when  the  South  was 
about  to  lose  the  whole  of  the  territory,  that  she  consented  to 
the  principle  of  a  division ;  and  I  say  that  Congress  has  the 
power,  in  my  opinion,  to  divide  fairly  and  justly,  but  no  power 
to  give  the  whole,  exclusively,  to  one  section,  just  as  in  the  case 
I  have  put  about  the  surplus  revenue. 

Now,  sir,  the  gentleman  remarked  that  my  allusion  to  the  gentle 
man  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  FULLER,]  was  unkind.  I  disclaimed 
yesterday — I  disclaimed  most  emphatically  yesterday — and  I  do 
again  to-day,  any  intention  of  alluding  to  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania  in  an  unkind  spirit.  I  did  it  because  I  thought  the  occa 
sion  required  it :  I  thought  it  due  to  the  progress  of  our  cause  here. 
I  felt  extremely  gratified  at  the  announcement  of  the  gentleman's 
opinions,  and  so  I  said  then.  I  say  now  that  my  intention  was 
not  to  cut  down  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  at  all,  but  it 
was  to  strengthen  him  and  to  strengthen  his  friends  and  our 
cause  at  the  North — it  was  to  give  our  friends  every  assurance 
and  induce  them  to  stand  firm ;  for  we  have  evidence  now  that 
if  they  do  so,  the  great  principles  established  in  1850,  and  car 
ried  out  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  will  ultimately  prevail  in 
this  country,  notwithstanding  the  clamor  at  the  first  elections 
against  it. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  am  happy  to  hear  that  I  misapprehend  the 
purpose  of  the  gentleman ;  but  when  he,  by  implication,  stated 
that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  had  seen  new  light — 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  did  not  say  that  he  had  seen  new  light. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Well,  that  light  had  dawned  upon  him. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  impression  upon  my  mind  was  that  the 
gentleman  did  imply  this  in  what  he  said. 


502  DEBATE    WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir.     What  I  said  was 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Well,  Mr.  Clerk,  may  I  be  allowed  to  ask 
the  gentleman,  in  order  that  I  may  be  able  to  understand  his 
position — for  I  have  some  difficulty  in  understanding  him — 
whether  he  believes  the  Missouri  compromise  line  to  have  been 
constitutional  or  unconstitutional  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  believe  that  it  was  constitutional. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Well,  that  is  what  I  understood  his  position 
to  amount  to  at  first. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  believe  it  was  founded  upon  the  principle  of 
a  fair  division  of  the  territory  as  it  was  then  understood,  and  as 
such  it  violated  no  constitutional  provision.  I  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  now  again,  whether  he  would  not  have  voted  for 
it  if  he  had  been  here  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Mr.  Clerk,  I  can  only  repeat  what  I  attempted 
to  say  in  reply  to  the  same  question  a  few  minutes  ago.  Had  I 
been  a  member  of  the  House  at  that  time,  my  opinion  is,  that  I 
would  have  done  what  it  has  been  my  uniform  habit  to  do — that 
I  would  have  investigated  every  question  upon  which  I  was  called 
to  vote  upon  its  constitutional  principles;  and  my  opinion  is, 
that  upon  an  investigation  such  as  I  gave  to  this  question  in  1850 
and  in  1854, 1  should  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  constitution  authorizing  the  Federal  government 
to  exercise  the  power  of  prohibiting  the  new  States  to  be  formed 
out  of  the  territory  of  the  Union  from  adopting  such  permanent 
institutions  as  they  chose  to  adopt  when  thej7  came  in  as  States. 
I  should,  therefore,  have  held  that  the  Missouri  compromise  was 
in  derogation  of  the  constitution ;  that  is,  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  constitution  authorizing  such  an  act ;  and  that,  inasmuch 
as  the  power  is  claimed  upon  that  clause  of  the  constitution  which 
authorizes  Congress  to  make  "  all  needful  rules  and  regulations" 
for  the  territory  and  other  property  of  the  Union,  and  inasmuch 
as  a  regulation  permanently  prohibiting  the  States  to  be  formed 
out  of  that  territory  from  acting  for  themselves  when  they  took 
on  themselves  sovereignty,  was  not  a  "needful  rule,"  that  Con 
gress  had  no  such  power.  That  is  my  present  opinion. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman,  then,  was  opposed  to  it,  and 
would  not  have  voted  for  it.  I  understand  him  to  say  that  he 
would  not  have  voted  for  the  Missouri  compromise. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  For  the  third  time,  I  will  endeavor  to  make 
myself  definitely  understood. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  have  asked  the  question  whether  the  gentle 
man  would  have  voted  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  compro 
mise.  The  gentleman  has  been  several  times  upon  the  floor,  and 
has  not  answered  that  question. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  My  opinion  is,  that,  had  I  been  a  member  of 
that  Congress,  I  would  have  investigated  the  question,  and  that, 
having  investigated  it,  I  would  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Missouri  compromise  was  not  authorized  by  the  constitution ; 


DEBATE  WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFER.  503 

and  I  would,  of  course,  have  voted  against  it,  and  sustained  the 
principle -incorporated  in  the  compromise  bills  of  1850.  That 
is  what  I  mean  to  say,  and  have,  in  substance,  several  times  re 
peated. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  that, 
in  1848,  he  would  have  voted  against  the  whole  South,  upon  the 
principle  that  all  the  southern  members  of  the  Senate  and  of  this 
body  were  more  dangerous  to  the  South  than  the  abolitionists 
themselves  !  After  investigating  and  groping  about  and  looking 
in  the  dark  for  a  light,  he  would  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
Congress  had  no  such  power,  and  would  have  voted  for  the  princi 
ples  established  in  1850.  Sir,  the  principles  established  in  1850 
were  the  principles  of  the  South  from  the  beginning.  But  when  we 
were  looking  to  an  extension  of  the  Missouri  line,  we  had  no 
hope  of  getting  the  principles  of  1850.  This  Missouri  line  of 
division  was  sustained  by  the  South  only  as  an  alternative  all  the 
time.  The  South  took  it  in  the  beginning  reluctantly.  But  the  gen 
tleman  attributes  to  me,  and  those  who  thus  sustained  it,  the 
doctrine  that  Congress  has  the  general  original  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  territories.  Now,  I  have  said,  and  repeat,  I 
hold  no  such  doctrine.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  said  to  this 
House  and  to  the  country  everywhere,  that  if  Congress  were  to 
exercise  such  power,  I  should  be  for  resisting  it.  While  I  was 
willing  to  divide  fairly  in  1848,  and  while  that  was  the  only  com 
promise  I  was  for,  and  while  I  stood  upon  the  same  principle  in 
1850,  I  proclaimed  to  the  country  that  if  we  did  not  get  a  fail- 
division,  if  the  North  took  the  whole  territory,  I  was  for  resist 
ance.  Now,  I  want  to  know  where  the  gentleman  is  going  to 
stand  in  such  a  contingency  ?  He  thinks,  as  I  do,  that  such  an 
exercise  of  power  would  be  unconstitutional.  Suppose  a  majoritj'' 
of  this  House  should  restore  the  Missouri  restriction,  and  sup 
pose  it  should  pass  the  Senate,  and  receive  the  executive 
approval,  what  are  you  going  to  do  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  explanation  which  the  gentleman  has 
amplified  to-day  is  the  same  which  he  made  yesterday,  and  I  am 
very  willing  that  he  should  extend  the  explanation. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  floor  is  mine,  and  I  cannot  yield  to  the 
gentleman,  unless  he  undertakes  to  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFEE.  I  certainly  will. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Suppose  I  say,  that  the  restoration  of  the  Mis 
souri  restriction  is  established,  what  is  the  gentleman  going  to 
do?  Suppose  Congress  does  exercise  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  territories — which  the  gentleman  thinks  is  a 
violation  of  the  constitution — what  is  he  going  to  do  ?  What 
measure  will  he  recommend  to  the  people  of  the  South  ?  What 
theory  of  government  is  he  going  to  act  upon  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFEE.  I  hold  that  my  friend  from  Georgia  has  not 
the  right  to  make  up  supposed  cases,  and  put  a  catechism  to  me 
upon  any  wild  imaginary  hypothesis. 


504  DEBATE  WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  himself  first  commenced  the 
system  of  catechising  on  supposed  cases.  He  offered  the  reso 
lution  declaring  that  the  opinions  of  candidates  should  be  known, 
and  followed  it  up  by  a  long  string  of  questions. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFPER.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  him  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  a  hundred  of  them ;  and  I  wrant  you 
to  answer  mine. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  In  what  clause  of  the  constitution  do  you 
find  the  power  authorizing  Congress  to  make  a  fair  division  of  the 
territories  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do  not  find  it  at  all. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  You  have  a  higher  law,  then,  than  the  con 
stitution  ? 

MR.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  recognize  any  higher  civil 
law  than  the  constitution.  I  have  said  before,  that  the  government 
of  the  territories  was  outside  of  the  constitution,  springing  from 
a  resulting  power  incident  to  the  acquisition,  and  that  a  fair 
division  was  not  violative  of  it.  That  is  what  I  said.  Now 
answer  my  question,  and  I  will  answer  you  a  dozen  more,  if  you 
put  them  to  me.  My  question  is,  what  will  you  recommend  your 
people  to  do,  provided  the  restriction  is  restored,  or  Congress 
does  exercise  the  power  of  excluding  the  people  of  the  southern 
States  from  an  equal  participation  in  the  territories  ? 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  will  do  that  which  a  southern  man,  loyal 
and  true  to  the  constitution,  should  clo  when  that  question  arises. 
I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to 
interrogate  me  upon  supposed  cases  which  may  never  arise. 
Upon  my  record  I  will  answer,  and  I  hold  him  to  his.  When  the 
time  shall  come,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  act  as  a  southern  and  a 
national  man,  regarding  the  rights  of  every  section  of  this 
Union.  Upon  the  gentleman's  own  record  I  have  interrogated 
him  ;  but  I  have  put  no  question  to  him  as  to  what  he  would  do 
in  a  supposed  state  of  things  which  may  never  happen.  When 
the  crisis  comes  upon  the  country,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  take 
that  course  which  a  patriotic  man,  living  in  the  South,  and 
devoted  to  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  should  take. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  As  the  gentleman  has  announced  to  the  coun 
try  who  are  the  best  friends  and  who  are  the  worst  enemies  of  the 
country,  and  that  certain  men  of  the  South  in  the  Senate  and  in 
the  House,  though  patriotic  in  their  motives,  are  worse  enemies 
of  the  South  than  even  the  abolitionists,  I  think  it  is  but  right 
that  the  South  should  be  enlightened  as  to  what  his  position 
would  be,  if  the  event  I  have  supposed  should  happen. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  maintain 
that  the  South  assumes  the  power,  and  has  used  it  in  prohibiting 
slavery  from  the  territories  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Southern  senators,  and  members  of  the  House 
from  the  South,  upon  this  floor,  did  vote  for  a  division  upon  the 


DEBATE  WITH   MB.   ZOLLICOFFER.  505 

line  of  36°  30',  and  they  did  unanimously  vote  to  extend  it  to 
the  Pacific  ocean.  They  did  it  reluctantly,  as  an  alternative  for 
some  show  of  justice,  but  I  take  it  for  granted  that  every  one  of 
them  did  what  he  thought  was  right,  under  the  circumstances,  as 
the  lesser  of  two  evils ;  and  that  none  of  them  thought  they  were 
violating  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  But  the  gentleman 
says  that  those  who  thus  voted  were  the  worst  enemies  of  the 
South. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  have  stated  to  the  House,  and  I  have  re 
peated  it  again  and  again,  that  I  did  not  say  that  those  gentlemen 
who  conceded  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
slavery,  were  less  patriotic  than  those  who  construe  the  constitu 
tion  as  I  do.  I  did  not  say  they  were  worse  enemies  of  the 
South.  I  did  say,  that  in  my  opinion  the  theory,  that  the  Federal 
government  has  the  right  to  act  for  the  States  to  be  formed  out 
of  the  territories  of  the  Union,  in  forming  their  permanent  dom 
estic  institutions,  is  a  theory  most  dangerous  to  the  South,  and 
the  more  dangerous  when  entertained  by  gentlemen  living  in  the 
South. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  will  not  answer  my  question. 
Beit  so.  The  South  can  judge  best  who  acts  upon  a  theory  most 
dangerous  to  her  interests.  My  position  was  and  is  this  :  I  was 
willing  to  divide  as  an  alternative  only,  but  a  majority  of  the  North 
would  not  consent  to  it',  and  now  we  have  got  the  great  principle, 
established  in  1850,  carried  out  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  that 
Congress,  after  removing  all  obstructions,  is  not  to  intervene 
against  us.  This  is  the  old  southern  republican  principle,  ob 
tained  after  a  hard  and  protracted  struggle  in  1850 ;  and  I  say, 
if  Congress  ever  again  exercises  the  power  to  exclude  the  South 
from  an  equal  participation  in  the  common  territories,  I,  as  a 
southern  man,  am  for  resisting  it.  The  gentleman  from  Tennes 
see  does  not  say  what  he  would  do  in  that  contingency. 

The  gentleman  upon  my  left  wishes  to  ask  me  a  question. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  that  he  was  in 
favor  of  an  equal  division,  because  it  was  just  and  fair.  He  says 
the  territories,  being  outside  of  the  constitution,  the  giving  the 
whole  of  them  to  one  part,  would  be  unconstitutional,  because 
unfair. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir,  I  did  not  say  "  the  giving  to  the  one  or 
the  other,"  but  "the  giving  exclusively  to  one." 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Was  it  constitutional  to  take  from  either  one  of 
those  parties  the  share  they  got  upon  a  just  division  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir ;  and  that  was  not  done ;  the  North  her 
self  would  not  abide  by  the  division  contemplated.  The  idea  on 
which  the  line  was  first  established  in  1820  was,  that  Missouri 
should  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  and  tliat  slavery 
should  be  excluded  from  all  of  the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of  30° 
30',  with  a  toleration  of  it  south  of  that  line,  if  the  people  chose. 
But  at  the  next  session  of  Congress,  in  1821,  the  North  voted 


506  DEBATE   WITH   MR.    ZOLLICOFFER. 

Missouri  out.  She  was  denied  admission  on  the  terms  of  the  act 
of  1820.  The  whole  South  was  for  it,  and  the  almost  entire 
North  against  it.  The  North  would  not  stand  by  the  compromise 
intended  to  give  her  an  exclusive  part.  The  Missouri  line  con 
templated  division,  therefore,  has  virtually  been  a  dead  letter 
from  that  day  to  this ;  the  North,  or  a  majority  of  her  represen 
tatives  in  Congress,  repudiated  it  themselves :  the  South  never 
did ;  they  stood  by  it  in  1821.  And  in  order  to  see  whether  the 
North  looked  upon  it,  and  considered  it  as  a  living  principle,  and 
not  a  repudiated  offer  to  compromise  upon  the  principle  of  divis 
ion,  the  South  proposed  in  184T  and  in  1848,  as  an  alternative  in 
lieu  of  the  "  Wilmot  proviso  "  on  the  Oregon  bill,  to  abide  in  good 
faith  by  it.  But  this  proposition,  voted  for  by  every  southern 
senator  and  representative  upon  this  floor,  was  voted  down,  again 
and  again,  by  an  overwhelming  majority  from  the  North.  They 
thus  repudiated  it  over  the  very  territory  which  we  acquired 
with  Louisiana :  the  same  repudiation  was  again  and  again  carried 
in  this  House  in  1850,  when  the  South  was  unanimously  for 
standing  in  good  faith  by  the  principle.  Therefore  the  South 
never  even  got  the  admission  of  Missouri  by  their  agreeing  to 
take  as  an  alternative  a  division  on  that  line,  and  we  were  thrown 
back,  in  1850,  upon  our  original  principles,  which  were,  that  there 
should  be  no  congressional  restrictions  at  all ;  but  that  the  peo 
ple  settling  the  territories  from  all  sections  of  the  "Union  should 
regulate  this  matter  of  slavery  for  themselves.  That  is  the  prin 
ciple,  as  I  understood,  that  the  South  stood  upon  in  1820,  before 
the  Missouri  restriction  was  moved.  It  was  the  old  republican 
principle ;  it  was  the  principle  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  could  not,  on  general  principles,  justly  and  rightly  legislate 
for  a  people  who  are  not  their  constituents ;  and  I  say  to  those 
gentlemen  who  call  themselves  republicans  upon  this  floor,  that, 
in  assuming  that  misapplied  title,  they  do  violence  to  every  prin 
ciple  consecrated  by  the  name  they  espouse. 

The  old  republican  idea  of  a  representative  government,  acted 
on  in  the  beginning,  was  a  very  different  thing  from  what  you 
proclaim  at  this  time.  At  the  time  of  the  formation  of  our  con 
stitution,  every  State  in  the  Union  but  one  was  a  slave  State  ; 
and  were  the}''  not  all  republican  States  ?  The  constitution  saj^s, 
new  States  may  be  admitted ;  and  the  only  thing  you  have  to 
look  at,  upon  the  application  of  any  for  admission,  is  to  see  that 
its  constitution  is  republican  in  its  character,  and  you,  gentlemen, 
who  call  yourselves  republicans  now,  say  that  if  the  constitution 
tolerates  slavery  it  is  not  republican,  and,  therefore,  your  fathers, 
your  republican  fathers,  with  slavery  existing  in  every  State  but 
one,  did  ngt  know  the  meaning  of  republicanism. 

According  to  your  interpretation  of  the  term,  they  acted  upon 
an  idea  that  would  have  excluded  every  one  of  the  old  thirteen 
from  the  Union  but  one — Massachusetts  alone  could  have  been  a 
Union  by  herself  upon  your  principles.  Is  it  supposed  that  the 


DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER.  507 

other  twelve  would  have  disputed  over  the  character  of  a  State 
constitution,  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  because  it  was  not 
republican,  if  it  only  embraced  the  same  principles  of  republican 
ism  as  their  own  ?  I  state  to  these  gentlemen  who  call  them 
selves  "  republican,"  that  they  desecrate  every  principle  conse 
crated  by  the  name  they  bear,  not  only  in  this  view,  but  they  do 
so  again  when  they  undertake  to  set  up  that  they  are  better 
judges  of  what  is  right  in  the  territories,  and  better  legislators 
for  the  people  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  than  the  people  of  those 
territories  are  for  themselves.  They  do  so  when  they  set  them 
selves  up  as  the  masters  and  judges  of  the  proper  institutions  of 
the  people  of  Kansas.  The  people  of  Massachusetts,  and  the 
people  of  the  other  northern  States,  not  content  with  attending 
to  their  own  business,  set  themselves  up  to  be  superior  to  the 
people  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  pretend  that  they  can  know 
their  interests  and  determine  them  better  than  they  can  them 
selves.  Sir,  I  utterly  deny  the  republicanism  of  their  pretensions. 

Mr.  STANTON  (interrupting)  made  an  inquiry  of  Mr.  STEPHENS, 
which  the  reporter  did  not  distinctly  hear. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  going  to  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close ; 
and  I  would  ask  the  republicans  in  this  House,  and  particularly 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  who  objects  to  my  proceeding,  to  listen. 
I  read,  sir,  what  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  who,  I  believe,  was  as 
violent  an  anti-slavery  man  in  his  sentiments  as  any  man,  said  to 
the  abolitionists  at  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  in  November,  1843: 

"As  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  district  of  Columbia,  I  have  said 
that  I  was  opposed  to  it — not  because  I  have  any  doubts  of  the  power  of 
Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  district,  for  I  have  none.  But  I  regard 
it  as  a  violation  of  republican  principles  to  enact  laws  at  the  petition  of 
one  people  which  are  to  operate  upon  another  people  against  their  consent.  As 
the  laws  now  stand  the  people  of  the  district  have  property  in  their  slaves." 

Just  upon  the  principle  of  its  being  anti-republican,  Mr 
Adams  would  not  legislate  for  the  people  of  this  district  against 
their  consent.  He  did  not  question  the  power. 

Mr.  STANTON  (interrupting).  I  must  make  a  question  of  order. 
I  do  not  think  it  advisable,  in  a  discussion  of  this  kind,  that  a 
•speech  of  this  so'rt  should  go  out  to  the  country  without  there 
being  an  opportunity  first  to  have  it  replied  to. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  shall  not  trespass  on  the  time  of  the  House 
more  than  a  few  minutes  longer. 

The  CLERK.  The  clerk  would  state  that  the  House,  by  unani 
mous  consent,  permitted  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to  proceed. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  ask  my  colleague  [Mr.  STANTON]  to 
withdraw  his  objection  and  allow  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to 
proceed  with  his  remarks.  If  we  are  to  have  a  debating  society 
here,  I  will  seek  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  gentleman,  and, 
therefore  I  desire  that  he  shall  be  fully  heard. 

Mr.  STANTON  withdrew  his  objections. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  is  not  my  intention,  Mr.  Clerk,  to  trespass 


508  DEBATE  WITH  MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

on  the  indulgence  of  this  House,  nor  shall  I  do  it.  I  have  been 
brought  into  the  discussion  much  further  than  I  had  any  idea  of 
when  I  rose.  But  there  is  one  remark  which  I  wish  to  make  be 
fore  concluding  what  I  wished  to  say ;  and  that  is  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereignty,  of  which  several  gentlemen 
have  spoken.  I  think  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  CARLILE] 
spoke  this  morning — if  I  understood  him  aright — of  the  principle 
of  squatter  sovereignty  embraced  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 
Now,  these  terms  of  "  squatter  sovereignty"  and  "  non-interven 
tion"  are  words  which  have  been  differently  understood  by  differ 
ent  gentlemen,  and  differently  by  the  same  gentlemen  at  different 
times,  as  I  have  stated.  I  wish  to  say  that,  as  I  understand 
"  squatter  sovereignty"  now,  and  as  I  have  always  understood  it, 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  it  in  the  Kansas  bill.  What  I  under 
stand  by  "  squatter  sovereignty"  is  the  inherent  and  sovereign 
right  of  the  people  of  the  territory  settling  on  the  common 
domain  to  establish  and  set  up  governments  for  themselves, 
without  looking  to  Congress,  and  independently  of  Congress. 

Now,  sir,  that  idea  was  embraced  by  some  gentlemen  in  1848 
and  1850,  as  part  of  their  doctrine  of  "  non-intervention"  by  Con 
gress  ;  and  with  this  view  I  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  [Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER],  who  has  read  from  my  speech 
in  1850,  when  I  used  the  term  ''non-intervention."  Many  per 
sons  embraced  that  with  the  other  views,  in  connection  with  that 
term  which  I  have  referred  to.  Against  that  doctrine,  with  that 
understanding  of  it,  I  always  stood  opposed,  and  am  opposed 
now.  There  is  not  a  single  feature,  not  a  particle  of  "  squatter 
sovereignty"  in  the  Kansas  bill,  on  that  idea.  Why,  sir,  their 
whole  organic  law  emanates  from  Congress.  Their  legislature, 
their  judiciary,  every  department  and  the  whole  machinery  of 
their  government  proceeded  from  Congress  ;  the  inherent  sover 
eign  right  of  the  people  to  establish  a  government  independently 
of  Congress  is  not  recognized  in  a  single  clause  of  that  bill.  If 
gentlemen  mean  by  squatter  sovereignty  this  principle,  I  say  to 
them  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  it  in  that  bill ;  and  I  am  as 
much  against  it  as  anybody. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a  question  ?  , 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  would  be  pleased  to  know  whether  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia  interprets  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  to 
give  to  the  people,  to  the  legislative  body,  of  the  territories  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  the  power  to  abolish  slavery  during  the 
existence  of  the  territorial  government  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  answer  the  gentleman.  I  think  that  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  gives  to  the  people  of  the  territory,  grants 
io  them  all  the  power  that  Congress  had  over  it,  and  no  more. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Do  you  believe  that  Congress  had  no  power 
to  abolish  slavery  in  that  territory  during  its  territorial  existence  ? 


DEBATE  WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFER.  509 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  think  it  would  be  unjust  and  a  great  wrong 
for  Congress  to  exercise  any  such  power. 

.Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  unconstitutional  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  think  there  is  no  power  in  the  constitution  to 
do  it,  and  it  would  be  wrong  from  any  resulting  power,  denying 
as  it  would  an  equal  and  just  enjoyment  of  the  public  domain  by 
all  the  people — and  unjust,  and  tantamount  to  usurpation  to  do 
it.  Sir,  I  was  going  to  say  that  the  gentleman  holds  that  Con 
gress  has  no  such  power — 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER  (interrupting).  Do  you  believe  that  Congress 
had  the  power  at  all  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Hear  me  through  What  I  was  going  to  say 
is,  that  all  the  power  which  Congress  possessed  over  the  terri 
tories  on  this  subject  is,  in  this  bill,  given  to  the  people.  And 
the  gentleman  holds  that  Congress  could  not  prohibit  slavery. 
If  so,  the  people  then  cannot.  Now,  what  I  hold  is,  that  the 
constitution  is  silent  upon  the  subject.  But  any  such  act  by 
Congress  in  the  case  supposed  would  be  an  act,  in  my  opinion, 
of  gross  injustice,  and  would  be  tantamount  to  an  open  violation 
of  any  of  the  express  provisions  of  the  constitution.  All  the 
power,  however,  which  Congress  had  over  the  subject  is  granted 
to  the  people,  and  they  have  got  none  else.  I  say  this,  and  that 
I  voted  for  the  bill  with  this  understanding  of  its  import,  and  a 
determination  that  whatever  the  people  of  that  territory  should 
do  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  whether  their  legislatures  should 
pass  laws  to  protect  it  or  to  exclude  it,  or  simply  leave  it  with 
out  protection,  I  should  for  myself  abide  by  their  acts.  I  was 
for  taking  off  an  odious  discrimination  and  an  unjust  restriction 
by  Congress  against  the  South,  and  leaving  the  question  for  those 
to  determine  who,  going  from  all  sections  alike,  were  most  deeply 
interested  in  it,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  territorial  bills 
of  1850. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  do  not  wish  to  misunderstand  the  gentle 
man  from  Georgia ;  and  I  therefore  ask  him  whether  I  am  to 
understand  him  as  saying  that  it  would  be  wrong  and  unjust  for 
Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territory;  yet  that  it  has  the 
constitutional  power  to  do  so,  and  that  Congress  conferred  that 
power  upon  the  territory? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir ;  the  gentleman,  it  seems,  wishes  to 
make  me  say  what  I  did  not  say.  I  never  said  that  Congress 
had  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  misappre 
hends  me,  if  he  supposes  that  I  intend  to  represent  him  as  saying 
what  I  did  not  understand  him  to  say. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yery  well,  then ;  do  not  make  me  say  what  I 
have  not  said. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  It  seems,  then,  that  I  misapprehend  the 
gentleman ;  but  that  certainly  was  my  understanding  of  the  pur 
port  of  his  answer  to  the  question  which  I  put  to  him. 


510  DEBATE   WITH    MR.   ZOLLICOFFEB. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  then,  the  gentleman  was  not  attending 
to  what  I  did  say,  because  the  whole  tenor  of  my  remarks  shows 
that,  in  my  opinion,  there  is  no  direct,  or  distinct,  or  original 
power  conferred  on  Congress  by  the  constitution  to  exclude 
slavery  from  any  of  the  territories,  or  any  portion  of  them ;  but 
on  the  acquisition  of  territory,  not  contemplated  by  the  constitu 
tion,  a  fair  division  of  the  country  might  be  made,  as  I  have 
stated,  between  the  parties  interested,  by  way  of  compromise.  I 
mean  to  say,  I  do  not  think  such  division  violates  the  constitu 
tion  ;  but  in  no  other  sense  do  I  hold  that  Congress  could  consti 
tutionally  agree  to  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  any  of  the  common 
territory,  or  any  part  of  it. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  That  I  may  not  misapprehend  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia,  as  it  seems  I  have  done,  for  I  find  it  difficult  to 
understand  him,  I  must  ask  him  another  question.  I  understand 
him  to  say  that  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  Congress  has  the  power 
to  abolish  slavery  in  a  part  of  the  territory — say  in  one  half  of 
the  territory.  Now  if  Congress  has  the  power  to  abolish  slavery 
in  half  the  territory,  has  it  not  also  the  power  to  abolish  it  in  the 
whole  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  /  have  not  used  the  word  "  abolish"  in  this 
connection  to-day ;  but  I  say  no  to  his  question. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.     Well,  "prohibit!" 

•  Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  I  have  used  that  word,  and  exclude, 
and  restrict.  I  now  say  distinctly  that  it  does  not  follow,  in  my 
opinion,  that  because  Congress  could  constitutionally  provide  for 
the  exclusion  of  slavery  over  part  of  the  territory  on  the  princi^ 
pie  of  division  I  have  been  speaking  of,  that  therefore  the  unlim 
ited  power  exists  to  exclude  it  from  the  whole.  I  deny,  in  toto, 
the  existence  of  such  unlimited  or  unqualified  power  in  Congress 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  TODD.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  question  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN,  of  Maine,  also  made  the  same  request  at  the 
same  time. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  will  allow  both  gentlemen  to  put  as  many 
questions  to  me  as  they  please.  I  will  first  hear  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  TODD.] 

Mr.  TODD.  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to  assume 
the  position,  that  the  power  does  not  exist  in  the  constitution  to 
determine  what  shall  be  the  institutions  of  the  territories  belong 
ing  to  the  United  States.  Now  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman 
wherein  that  power  resides  ?  Does  it  reside  in  the  people  of  the 
territories,  or  does  it  reside  in  Congress  ?  If  it  does  not  exist  in 
the  constitution,  from  whence  does  the  gentleman  derive  it  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do  not  think  it  exists  anywhere,  while  the 
territorial  condition  lasts,  neither  in  the  people  of  the  territory 
nor  in  Congress.  The  public  domain,  while  it  remains  a  territory 
of  the  United  States,  is  the  common  property  of  the  people  of  the 


DEBATE  WITH   MB.   ZOLLICOFFER.  511 

several  States,  to  be  disposed  of  by  Congress,  under  the  limita 
tions  of  the  constitution,  for  the  just  and  equal  enjoyment  or  use 
of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  and  there  is  no  general  or  unlimited 
power  existing  anywhere,  either  in  Congress  or  the  people  of  the 
territory,  or  anybody  else,  to  deprive  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States  from  going  there  with  his  property,  of  whatever  kind  it 
may  consist,  so  long  as  it  is  a  territory.  I  have  as  much  right  to  go 
there  with  my  property  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  has 
with  his ;  and  the  people  of  Georgia  have  as  much  right  to  go 
there  with  their  property  as  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  have  with 
theirs.  The  unlimited  power  to  exclude  slavery,  and  that  is  the 
idea  I  suppose  the  gentleman  is  upon,  exists  nowhere  in  my 
opinion. 

The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  seems  to  be  hunting  for  the 
power,  and  because  he  cannot  find  it  in  one  place,  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  it  must  exist  in  another.  His  logic  is  about  as  good 
as  that  of  the  man  who  undertook  to  prove  that  Columbus  was 
not  the  discoverer  of  America ;  that  this  honor  was  due  to  some 
Norwegian  navigators,  who  it  was  claimed  discovered  it,  I  be 
lieve  about  the  year  900,  at  any  rate,  several  centuries  before  Co 
lumbus.  The  reasoning  by  which  this  conclusion  was  arrived  at 
was,  that  a  Norwegian  vessel,  about  that  time,  set  out  from  the  coast 
of  Norway,  sailing  west,  which  was  never  heard  of  afterward  ;  and 
the  argument  was,  that  those  on  this  vessel  must  have  gone  to  Ame 
rica,  for  if  they  did  not,  where  else  did  they  go  to  ?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  TODD.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  correctly  ?  I  under 
stood  him  to  say  that  he  advocates  the  principle  of  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill,  because  it  is  based  upon  the  great  republican 
principle  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  settle  their  own  institutions 
for  themselves. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir ;  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  TODD.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  that  the  people 
have  not  that  right,  and  that  Congress  has  not  the  power  to 
clothe  them  with  that  right.  Now,  I  want  to  know  where  this 
great  representative  principle,  of  which  the  gentleman  speaks, 
resides,  and  how  it  is  to  be  exercised,  if  neither  Congress  nor  the 
people  possess  it  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  is  to  be  exercised  by  the  people  when  they 
form  their  State  constitution.  That  is  my  view  of  how  and  when 
the  power  is  to  be  properly  exercised ;  that  is  what  I  conceive 
the  old  republican  idea  was. 

Now,  sir,  I  will  hear  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASH- 
BURN,]  who  desires  to  ask  me  a  question. 

Mr.  WASHBURN,  of  Maine.  I  understood  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  to  say  that  he  believed  that  Congress  has  no  power  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  territories,  but  that  the  power  resides  in 
the  people ;  and  again,  that  the  people  of  the  territories  have  no 
power  except  that  delegated  to  them  by  Congress.  I  understood 
the  gentleman  to  lay  down  these  two  propositions.  Now,  the 


512  DEBATE   WITH   MR.   ZOLLICOFFER. 

question  I  have  to  ask  is  this :  if  the  people  of  the  territories 
have  no  power  except  that  given  to  them  by  Congress,  and  Con 
gress  has  no  power  to  exclude  slavery  in  the  territories,  where 
do  the  people  of  the  territories  get  the  power  to  exclude  it 
there  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  people  have,  in  my  opinion,  the  power  to 
exclude  it  only  in  a  State  capacity,  or  when  they  form  their 
State  constitution.  Then  they  get  it  where  all  the  States  get  it. 
The  people,  in  a  territorial  condition,  are  but  new  States  in  em 
bryo  :  this  latent  power  of  full  sovereignty,  when  they  assume 
State  form,  then  develops  itself;  as  wings  to  rise  and  fly,  though 
latent  in  the  chrysalis,  do  nevertheless  develop  themselves  in  full 
beauty,  vigor,  and  perfection  at  the  proper  time.  But  I  have  this 
further  to  say  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASH- 
BURN.]  That  gentleman,  and  I  suppose  a  majority  of  this  House, 
hold  that  Congress  has  the  full  and  absolute  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  territories.  Well,  sir,  if  Congress  has  such 
power  it  has  conferred  that  power  upon  the  people  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska.  I  hold  that  Congress  has  not  such  unqualified 
power ;  but  if  it  has,  as  the  gentleman  believes,  then  the  people 
of  those  territories  possess  it  under  the  bill.  This  is  evident 
from  the  language  of  the  bill  itself. 

"  That  the  constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  in  the  said  terri 
tory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth 
section  of  the  'Act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  princi 
ple  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  terri 
tories,  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the 
compromise  measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void ;  it  being 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in 
their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  : 
Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or 
put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the 
act  of  6th  March,  1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or 
abolishing  slavery.' " 

Now,  sir,  as  I  have  stated,  I  voted  for  this  bill,  leaving  the 
whole  matter  to  the  people  to  settle  for  themselves,  subject  to  no 
restriction  or  limitation  but  the  constitution.  With  this  distinct 
understanding  of  its  import  and  meaning,  and  with  a  determina 
tion  that  the  existence  of  this  power  being  disputed  and  doubted, 
it  would  be  better  and  much  more  consistent  with  our  old-time 
republican  principles  to  let  the  people  settle  it  than  for  Congress 
to  do  it.  And  although  my  own  opinion  is  that  the  people,  under 
the  limitations  of  the  constitution,  have  not  the  rightful  power  to 
exclude  slavery  so  long  as  they  remain  in  a  territorial  condition, 
yet  I  am  willing  that  they  may  determine  it  for  themselves,  and 
when  they  please.  I  shall  never  negative  any  law  they  may  pass, 


DEBATE  WITH  MR.  ZOLLICOFFER.          513 

if  it  is  the  result  of  a  fair  legislative  expression  of  the  popular  will. 
Never !  I  am  willing  that  the  territorial  legislature  may  act  upon 
the  subject  when  and  how  they  may  think  proper.  We  got  the 
congressional  restriction  taken  off.  The  territories  were  made 
open  and  free  for  immigration  and  settlement  by  the  peo 
ple  of  all  the  States  alike,  with  their  property  alike.  No 
odious  and  unjust  discrimination  or  exclusion  against  any  class 
or  portion :  and  I  am  content  that  those  who  thus  go  there  from 
all  sections,  shall  do  in  this  matter  as  they  please  under  their 
organic  law.  I  wanted  the  question  taken  out  of  the  halls  of 
national  legislation.  It  has  done  nothing  but  disturb  the  public 
peace  for  thirty-five  years  or  more.  So  long  as  Congress  under 
takes  to  manage  it,  it  will  continue  to  do  nothing  but  stir  up 
agitation  and  sectional  strife.  The  people  can  dispose  of  it  better 
than  we  can.  Why  not  then,  by  common  consent,  drop  it  at 
once  and  forever  ?  Why  not  you,  gentlemen,  around  me,  give  up 
your  so-called  and  so-miscalled  republican  ideas  of  restoring  the 
Missouri  restriction,  and  let  the  people  in  the  far  off  territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  look  after  their  own  condition,  present 
and  future,  in  their  own  way  ?  Is  it  not  much  more  consistent 
with  Mr.  Adams's  ideas  of  republicanism  for  them  to  attend  to 
their  own  domestic  matters,  than  for  you  or  us  to  undertake  to 
do  it  for  them  ?  Let  us  attend  to  our  business,  and  let  them 
attend  to  theirs.  What  else  keeps  this  House  disorganized  and 
suspends  all  legislative  business  ?  I  wished,  sir,  in  voting  for  the 
Kansas  bill,  and  in  carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  great  princi 
ples  established  in  1850 — that  memorable  epoch,  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century — and  fixing  them  as  the  basis  and  rule  of 
action  on  the  part  of  the  general  government  in  her  territorial 
policy,  to  get  rid  of  this  disturbing  question  here,  by  referring  it 
unrestrictedly,  as  far  as  I  could  under  the  constitution,  to  the 
people.  If  they  have  not  the  power  to  settle  it  while  a  territory, 
as  a  matter  of  absolute  right — ex  debito  justitia,  I  was  willing,  so 
far  as  I  was  concerned  and  had  the  power  to  do  it,  to  give  it  to 
them  as  a  matter  of  favor — ex  gratia.  I  am  willing,  as  I  say, 
that  they  shall  exercise  the  power ;  and,  if  a  fair  expression  of 
the  popular  will — not  such  as  may  be  effected  by  New  Eng 
land  emigrant  aid  societies,  or  other  improper  interference, 
but  the  fair  expression  of  the  will  of  the  hardy  pioneers,  who 
going  from  all  sections  without  let  or  hindrance,  seek  new 
lands  and  new  homes  in  those  distant  frontier  countries — shall 
declare,  in  deliberate  and  proper  form  under  their  organic 
law,  that  slavery  shall  not  exist  amongst  them,  and  if  I  am 
here  at  the  time,  I  shall  abide  by  their  decision.  I,  as  a  member 
upon  this  floor,  never  intend  to  raise  the  question  of  their  con 
stitutional  power  to  adopt  such  a  measure.  I  shall  never  attempt 
to  trammel  the  popular  will  in  that  case,  although  I  may  think 
such  legislation  wrong  and  unjust,  and  not  consistent  with  con 
stitutional  duty  on  the  part  of  those  who  enact  it.  Yet  it  will 
33 


514  DEBATE   WITH   ME.   ZOLLICOFFEB. 

lie  a  wrong  without  anty  feasible  remedy,  so  far  as  I  can  see.  I 
am  for  maintaining  with  steadfastness  the  territorial  bills  of  1850 
— the  principle  of  leaving  the  people  of  the  territories,  without 
congressional  restriction,  to  settle  this  question  for  themselves, 
and  to  come  into  the  Union,  when  admitted  as  States,  either  with 
or  without  slavery,  as  ihey  may  determine.  This  principle  was 
recognized  and  established  after  the  severest  sectional  struggle 
this  country  has  ever  witnessed,  and  after  the  old  idea,  whether 
right  or  wrong  in  itself,  whether  just  or  unjust  whether  constitu 
tional  or  unconstitutional,  of  dividing  the  territories  between 
the  sections,  was  utterly  abandoned  and  repudiated  by  the  party 
that  at  first  forced  it  as  an  alternative  upon  the  other. 

The  Kansas  and  Nebraska  act  carries  out  the  policy  of  this  new 
principle  instead  of  the  old  one.  The  country,  with  singular  unan 
imity,  sustained  the  measures  of  1850  ;  and  all  that  is  now  want 
ing  for  the  permanent  peace  and  repose  of  the  whole  Union  upon 
all  these  questions,  is  an  adherence  to  the  measures  of  1850,  both 
"  in  principle  and  substance"  &s  the  settled  polic}r  of  Congress 
upon  all  such  matters.  That  the  people  of  all  sections  will  come 
ultimately,  and  that  before  long,  to  this  stand,  I  cannot  permit 
myself  to  doubt.  Let  us  hear  no  more,  then,  of  repeal.  Let  us 
organize  this  body  upon  a  national  basis  and  a  national  settle 
ment.  Let  us  turn  our  attention  to  the  business  of  the  country 
which  appropriately  belongs  to  us.  Yes,  sir,  the  great  and  diver 
sified  interests  of  this  truly  great  and  growing  country  of  ours, 
about  which  we  talk  and  boast  so  much,  and  about  which  we  have 
so  much  reason  to  talk  and  boast.  Let  us  look  to  the  fulfillment 
of  the  high  and  noble  mission  assigned  us.  Do  not  let  the  party 
watchwords  of  "  liberty  and  freedom  "  for  the  black  man,  which 
some  gentlemen  seem  always  ready  to  repeat,  cause  you  to  forget 
or  neglect  the  higher  objects  and  duties  of  government.  These 
relate  essentially  to  our  own  race,  their  well-being,  their  progress, 
their  advancement.  Let  the  inferior  race  in  our  midst  take  that 
position  for  which,  by  a  wise  Providence,  it  was  fitted,  and  which 
an  enlightened  and  Christian  civilization  in  the  different  sections 
of  our  common  country,  may  think  proper  to  assign  it. 

Mr.  Clerk,  we  hear  a  great  deal  now-a-days  about  Americanism 
— and  by  not  a  few  of  those,  too,  who  call  themselves,  par  excel 
lence,  republicans.  Now,  sir,  has  America — with  her  hundreds 
of  millions  of  foreign  trade,  and  millions  almost  beyond  count  of 
internal  and  domestic  trade — with  all  her  incalculable  resources 
of  commerce,  agriculture,  and  manufactures  in  a  state  of  rapid 
development — has  America,  the  asylum  of  the  misruled,  misgov 
erned,  and  oppressed  of  all  climes — the  home  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty — the  light  of  the  world  and  the  hope  of  mankind,  no  higher 
objects  to  occupy  our  attention  than  those  questions  which,  what 
ever  may  be  their  merits  touching  the  condition  of  the  African 
race  in  the  several  States  and  territories,  do  not  properly  come 
within  the  purview  of  our  duties  to  look  after  here  ? — questions, 


SPEECH  IN  THE   KANSAS   ELECTION"   CASE.  515 

the  discussion  of  which  in  this  hall  can  have  no  possible  effect 
but  to  create  agitation,  stir  up  strife,  array  State  against  State, 
section  against  section,  and  to  render  the  government,  by  sus 
pending  its  legislative  functions,  incapable  practically  of  perform 
ing  those  great  and  essential  objects  for  which  alone  it  was  ex 
pressly  created. 

These  views  I  submit  to  the  considerate  attention  of  all.  I 
shall  trespass  no  longer  upon  your  indulgence.  I  thank  the 
House  for  their  kindness  in  hearing  me.  I  must  apologize  for 
the  time  I  have  occupied  the  floor.  I  had  no  idea,  when  I  arose, 
of  speaking  ten  minutes.  I  barely  wished  to  say  to  the  gentle 
man  from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER,]  that  those  gentlemen 
from  the  South,  who  had  voted  for  the  Missouri  line,  could  not, 
because  of  such  votes,  be  justly  held  or  considered  the  advocates 
of  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
territories ;  and  but  for  his  extended  reply,  bringing  out  new 
matter,  I  should  not  have  taken  up  the  ten  minutes  allotted. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  RESOLUTION  FROM  THE  COMMIT 
TEE  OF  ELECTIONS  ASKING  FOR  POWER  TO  SEND 
FOR  PERSONS  AND  PAPERS  IN  THE  KANSAS 
ELECTION  CASE. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

MARCH  11,  1856. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  It  is  not  my  desire  to  prolong  this  debate,  nor 
do  I  expect  to  present  any  new  points  on  the  merits  of  the  ques 
tion  before  the  House.  I  wish,  and  intend  only  in  what  I  have 
to  say,  to  enlarge  upon  and  enforce  some  of  the  points  made  in 
the  minority  report  on  your  table.  I  wish,  too,  in  what  I  have 
to  say  to  have  the  ear  of  the  House  rather  than  the  ear  of  the 
country ;  not  that  I  do  not  want  the  country  to  hear  what  I  say, 
but  my  main  object  is  to  address  myself  this  morning  particu 
larly,  especially,  and  emphatically,  to  the  attention  of  the  House 
and  upon  the  questions  before  us.  These,  sir,  are  grave  ques 
tions.  They  are  questions  involving  principles  of  the  first  mag 
nitude.  They  are  questions  of  a  judicial  as  well  as  political  char 
acter  of  the  highest  order,  far  above  the  small  consideration  of 
which  of  two  men  shall  have  a  seat  as  delegate  here.  In  deciding 
them,  we  sit  not  as  legislators  but  as  judges.  Our  decision  upon 
this  resolution,  whatever  it  may  be,  will  be  an  important  prece 
dent  in  the  future  history  of  this  country.  We  should,  therefore, 
not  act  without  due  deliberation,  careful  reflection,  and  a  full  un 
derstanding  of  the  principles  involved ;  and  we  should  also  be 


516  SPEECH   IN   THE   KANSAS  ELECTION   CASE. 

stripped,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  party  bias  and  all  political 
prejudice. 

The  proposition  before  us  is  one  of  an  unusual  character.  It 
is  for  this  House  to  exercise  one  of  its  extraordinary  powers ; 
that  is,  the  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  in  a  case  be 
fore  us,  sitting  as  a  court,  judging  of  the  qualifications,  election, 
and  return  of  one  who  occupies  a  seat  as  a  territorial  delegate 
upon  this  floor.  Now,  sir,  I  do  not  question  the  power  of  the 
House  to  exercise  the  authority  invoked.  The  gentleman  on  my 
right  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  KUNKEL,]  in  his  remarks  yester 
day,  spoke  as  if  he  thought  those  of  us  who  oppose  the  reso 
lution  now  pending  denied  the  power  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers  in  cases  of  contested  elections  ;  and  he  cited  cases  in 
which  it  has  been  done.  On  this  point  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  un 
derstood  ;  I  do  not  deny  the  power  in  a  proper  case.  Though 
no  instance  of  its  exercise  has  occurred  since  the  act  of  Congress 
of  1851,  regulating  the  mode  of  taking  testimony  in  cases  of  con 
test  for  seats  here ;  and  no  case  need  ever  occur,  as  far  as  I  can 
see,  so  long  as  that  law  remains  on  the  statute  book.  Its  pro 
visions  are  full  and  ample.  But  should  the  case  occur  where  it 
may  be  necessary,  in  order  to  get  proper  and  competent  testi 
mony  to  establish  any  fact  that  the  House  can  legitimately  and 
properly  inquire  into  in  such  investigations,  to  send  for  per 
sons  and  papers,  I  do  not  question  their  power  to  do  it.  What 
I  maintain  is,  that  the  power  can  be  rightfully  exercised  only 
when  it  is  done  to  procure  testimony  which  is  in  itself  rele 
vant,  pertinent,  competent,  and  admissible,  to  prove  such  facts  as 
the  House  can  properly  consider  and  look  into.  Nor  do  I  wish 
to  be  understood  as  being  inclined  in  the  slightest  degree  to  op 
pose  investigation  in  this  case  to  the  fullest  extent  that  can  be 
properly  gone  into  by  us.  Within  these  limits,  I  am  in  ftivor  of 
the  House  taking  the  widest  range  and  greatest  latitude  of  inves 
tigation.  But  is  the  question  before  us  such  a  one  as  would 
allow  a  hearing  of  the  testimony  sought  to  be  obtained,  even  if 
it  were  at  hand  ?  I  think  it  is  not.  It  is  to  this  point  I  now 
speak. 

What,  sir,  is  the  character  of  the  testimony  which  is  asked  to 
be  sent  for  ?  And  what  is  the  object  of  it  if  obtained  ?  Sift  the 
whole  matter — get  rid  of  the  rubbish — go  through  both  reports ; 
and  does  not  the  real  gist  of  this  application  amount  to  this :  The 
memorialist  wishes  witnesses  sent  for  to  prove  the  invalidity  of 
the  law  of  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  under  which  a  sitting 
delegate  was  elected,  on  the  ground  that  the  members  of  the 
legislative  assembly  of  that  territory  which  passed  it  were  not 
properly  and  legally  elected.  Is  not  this  a  fair  statement  of  the 
proposition  as  it  now  stands  before  us  ?  It  was  to  get  this  clear 
view  of  its  merits  before  the  House  that  I  moved,  when  it  was 
here  before,  to  refer  the  proposition  back  to  the  committee,  to 
have  their  reasons  and  grounds  for  making  it  reported  to  the 


SPEECH   IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE.  517 

House.  We  now  have  their  reasons  ;  we  now  know  what  is  their 
object ;  and  have  I  not  stated  it  fully  and  fairly  ?  Then,  sir,  is 
the  testimony  competent  if  it  were  here  ?  Mark  you ;  we  sit  as  a 
court.  Would  it  be  admissible  in  the  trial  of  any  case  in  an}7" 
court — in  a  criminal  case,  for  instance — to  permit  a  party  to  offer 
evidence  to  impeach  the  validity  of  the  law  under  which  the  ac 
cused  was  arraigned,  by  showing  that  the  legislature  that  passed 
the  law  was  not  properly  elected  and  legally  constituted  ?  The 
validity  of  a  law  may  be  inquired  into  and  judged  of  by  a  court, 
on  some  grounds  which  might  be  stated.  The  constitutionality 
of  a  law  may  be  decided  upon — that  I  do  not  question — but  never 
upon  this  ground.  The  rules  governing  all  courts  in  passing 
upon  laws  and  construing  statutes,  I  need  not  here  state.  But 
no  court,  in  judging  of  the  validity  of  a  statute  on  any  of  the 
grounds  they  take  cognizance  of,  will  ever  allow  an  inquiry  into 
the  legality  of  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  that 
passed  it.  No  case  can  be  found  of  this  character  in  the  whole 
history  of  civil  jurisprudence. 

The  reason  courts  of  law  will  not  allow  such  inquiries^o  be 
made  before  them  is,  that  the  decision  of  all  such  questions  prop 
erly  belongs  to  another  tribunal — to  the  Houses  respectively  of 
the  law-making  power  itself;  and  their  decision,  when  made,  is 
considered  as  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction, 
which  no  other  court  will  inquire  into  it.  And  this  House,  sitting 
as  a  court  as  it  now  does,  cannot  inquire  into  any  fact  invalidat 
ing  or  impeaching  the  validity  of  any  law  either  of  the  United 
States,  a  State,  or  territory,  which  any  other  court  could  not  in 
quire  into.  I  assert  this  as  a  principle  that  cannot  be  successfully 
assailed.  I  call  upon  gentlemen  who  occupy  a  contrary  position 
to  show  a  case,  if  they  can,  in  this  or  any  other  country,  where 
the  validity  of  a  law  in  any  court  of  justice  was  ever  allowed  to 
be  impeached  by  inquiring  into  the  legality  of  the  election  of  the 
members  of  the  legislature  that  passed  it.  That  is  what  we  are 
now  called  upon  to  do ;  and  that  is  what  I  assert  we  have  no 
right  to  do.  Why,  sir,  it  is  a  fundamental  maxim  of  the  English 
law,  laid  down  by  Sir  Edward  Coke,  illustrated  by  Sir  William 
Blackstone,  and  inforced  by  every  writer  on  the  subject,  both 
English  and  American,  that  it  is  an  inherent  right  of  the  high 
court  of  Parliament — from  which,  as  a  model,  all  our  legislative 
parliamentary  bodies  have  sprung — to  settle  for  itself  all  ques 
tions  touching  its  own  organization  ;  and  when  such  questions 
are  thus  settled,  they  cannot  be  inquired  into  elsewhere. 

What  is  the  question  now  before  us  ?  Under  that  clause  of 
the  constitution  which  secures  to  this  House  the  right  and  power 
to  judge  of  the  qualifications,  elections,  and  returns  of  those  who 
may  be  entitled  to  hold  seats  on  this  floor,  we  have  brought  to 
our  consideration  the  right  of  the  sitting  delegate  of  the  territory 
of  Kansas.  Into  his  qualifications,  election,  and  return,  we  have 
full  power  to  go,  and  to  determine  all  questions  pertaining  either 


518  SPEECH  IN  THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 

to  his  qualifications,  his  election,  or  return.  But  in  doing  this, 
we  are  asked  to  take  a  step  further,  and  to  judge  not  only  of  his 
election,  return,  and  qualifications,  but  to  go  into  an  investiga 
tion  and  judge  of  the  qualifications,  elections,  and  returns  of  the 
members  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  Kansas,  which  passed  the 
law  under  which  it  is  admitted  he  was  elected.  I  say,  sir,  accord 
ing  to  the  principle  which  I  have  laid  down,  no  case  in  the  parlia 
mentary  history  of  England,  from  which  all  our  institutions  have 
sprung,  or  in  this  country,  can  be  adduced  to  justify  or  warrant 
it.  I  beg  leave  to  call  attention  to  some  authority  on  this  point. 
I  read  from  Sir  Edward  Coke,  (4  Inst.,  p.  15  ;)  in  speaking  of 
the  high  court  of  Parliament,  he  says : 

"  And  as  every  court  of  justice  hath  laws  and  customs  for  its  direction, 
some  by  the  common  law,  some  by  the  civil  and  common  law,  some  by 
peculiar  laws  and  customs,  etc.,  so  the  high  court  of  Parliament,  suispropriis 
legibu$  et  conseutudinibus  subsistit.  It  is  lex  et  consuetudo  parliamenti. 

"  And  this  is  the  reason  that  the  judges  ought  not  to  give  any  opinion 
of  a  matter  of  Parliament,  because  it  is  not  to  be  decided  by  the  common 
laws,  \^tsecundum  legem  et  conseutudinem  parliamenti  ;  and  so  the  judges 
in  divers  parliaments  have  confessed." 

On  any  matter  relating  to  the  constitution,  organization, 
rights  or  privileges  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Lords,  the 
Commons  cannot  interfere.  In  like  matters,  relating  to  the 
organization  of  the  House  of  Commons,  the  Lords  cannot 
interfere.  No  other  court  in  the  kingdom  can  interfere. 
The  highest  court  of  the  realm — the  King  with  the  prerog 
atives  of  the  Crown — cannot  interfere.  On  all  these  mat 
ters  each  House  is  a  court  with  full,  ample,  absolute  jurisdic 
tion  over  the  whole  subject.  And  when  they  are  determined  by 
that  court,  with  full  and  competent  jurisdiction  over  the  subject- 
matter,  its  judgment  cannot  be  inquired  into  by  any  other  tribu 
nal.  Sir  Edward  Coke  says  further,  on  page  50,  same  volume : 

"  Thus  much  have  we  thought  good  to  set  down  concerning  knights, 
citizens,  and  burgesses ;  because  much  time  is  spent  in  Parliament  con 
cerning  the  right  of  elections,  etc.,  which  might  be  more  profitably  em 
ployed  pro  bono  publico." 

This  latter  remark  is  not  very  inapplicable  to  our  condition. 
But  the  author  goes  on : 

"  Now,  to  treat  more  in  particular  (as  it  hath  been  desired)  of  the  laws, 
customs,  liberties,  and  privileges  of  this  court  of  Parliament,  which  are 
the  very  heart-strings  of  the  commonwealth,"  *  *  *  "would  take  up  a 
whole  volume  of  itself.  Certain  it  is,  as  hath  been  said,  that  curia  par 
liamenti  suis  propriis  legibus  subsistit.'1 

And  he  goes  on  to  say  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  justices 
of  England,  or  the  barons  of  the  exchequer,  to  judge  of  any  of 
these  coming  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court  of  Parliament. 
Now,  sir,  1  invite  attention  to  what  Sir  William  Blackstone  says 
on  this  subject  in  his  Commentaries,  with  which  all  of  us  ought 


SPEECH  IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE.  519 

to  be  familiar.     After  referring  to  these  remarks  of  Coke,  and 
affirming  them,  he  says,  in  vol.  1,  p.  163  : 

"  It  will  be  sufficient  to  observe  that  the  whole  of  the  law  and  custom 
of  Parliament  has  its  original  from  this  one  maxim, '  that  whatever  matter 
arises  concerning  either  House  of  Parliament  ought  to  be  examined,  dis 
cussed,  and  adjudged,  in  that  House  to  which  it  relates,  and  not  elsewhere. 
Hence,  for  instance,  the  Lords  will  not  suffer  the  Commons  to  interfere  in 
settling  the  election  of  a  Peer  of  Scotland ;  the  Commons  will  not  allow 
the  Lords  to  judge  of  the  election  of  a  Burgess ;  nor  will  either  House 
permit  the  subordinate  courts  of  law  to  examine  the  merits  of  either  case." 

All  such  matters  are  to  be  decided  by  the  Houses  of  Parlia 
ment,  respectively, -not  arbitrarily,  but  according  to  the  usages, 
customs,  and  precedents  in  like  cases,  which  constitute  the  lex 
parliament!,  or  law  of  Parliament ;  but  when  decided,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  there  is  no  power  to  reverse  the  decision.  Just 
so,  sir,  with  us ;  when  this  House  passes  judgments  upon  the 
qualifications  or  election  of  a  member  here,  it  is  final  and  conclu 
sive.  Here  the  matter  is  to  be  examined,  discussed,  and  ad- 
judged ;  and,  when  adjudged,  it  cannot  be  inquired  into  else 
where.  So  with  every  legislative  body.  On  this  point,  I  now 
call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  what  Mr.  Justice  Story  says 
upon  the  same  subject  in  speaking  of  this  clause,  in  his  treatise 
upon  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  After  quoting  the 
clause  of  the  constitution  which  provides  that  each  House  shall 
judge  of  the  qualifications,  elections,  and  returns  of  its  own  mem 
bers,  he  says,  in  vol.  II.,  p.  295. 

'•The  only  possible  question  on  such  a  subject  is  as  to  the  body  in  which 
such  a  power  shall  be  lodged.  If  lodged  in  any  other  than  the  legislative 
body  itself,  its  independence,  its  purity,  and  even  its  existence  and  action, 
may  be  destroyed  or  put  into  imminent  danger.  No  other  body  but  itself 
can  have  the  same  motive  to  perpetuate  and  preserve  these  attributes ;  no 
other  body  can  be  so  perpetually  watchful  to  guard  its  own  rights  and  pri 
vileges  from  infringement,  to  purify  and  vindicate  its  own  character,  and 
to  preserve  the  rights  and  sustain  the  free  choice  of  its  constituents.  Ac 
cordingly,  the  power  has  always  been  lodged  in  the  legislative  body  by  the 
uniform  practice  of  England  and  America.'11 

If  more  authority  is  desired  on  this  point,  I  refer  to  Kent's 
Commentaries,  Tucker's,  and  to  all  writers  on  the  subject.  It  is 
the  uniform  practice  of  this  country,  adopted  from  England,  to 
leave  the  adjudication  of  all  questions  touching  the  elections  and 
returns  of  members  of  legislative  bodies  to  those  bodies  them 
selves.  The  principle  runs  through  all  our  State  legislatures.  It 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  our  representative  institutions.  It  is 
recognized  even  in  all  our  voluntary  associations  and  conventions, 
whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  There  can  be  no  efficient  political 
legislative  organization  without  it ;  and  when  the  legislative  bodv 
to  which  the  question  belongs,  has  made  its  decision,  there  is  no 
appeal  to  any  other  power.  It  is  a  final  judgment  rendered.  It 
is  so  with  the  decision  of  this  House  on  such  questions.  It  is  so 


520  SPEECH  IN"  THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 

with  the  decisions  of  the  Senate  on  like  questions.  It  is  so  with 
the  State  legislatures,  and  it  should  be  so  in  Kansas.  If  the  elec 
tion  of  any  members  of  the  legislature  there,  either  of  the  House 
or  the  Council,  was  illegal,  the  proper  place  for  an  inquiry  into  it 
was  there.  And  if  any  person  wishing  to  contest  those  elections 
failed  to  present  their  case  there  before  the  proper  tribunal,  they 
cannot  come  here  to  do  it.  If  we  inquire  now  into  the  legality  of 
those  elections  for  the  purpose  of  disregarding  or  invalidating  the 
law  passed  by  the  legislature  under  which  the  sitting  delegate 
was  elected,  why  may  we  not  inquire  into  the  validity  of  the  law 
of  Congress  organizing  that  territorial  government,  upon  the 
grounds  that  some  of  the  members  of  this  House  who  voted  for 
it  in  the  last  Congress  were  not  properly  elected  ?  Or  on  the 
ground  that  some  of  the  Senators  who  voted  for  it  were  chosen 
by  members  of  State  legislatures  not  properly  elected  ?  And  this, 
too,  on  the  still  further  ground  that  some  of  the  sheriffs  or  return 
ing  officers  in  the  State  elections  for  members  of  the  legislature 
perhaps  were  not  legally  elected  or  qualified  ?  If  you  open  the 
door  to  such  an  investigation  as  that  now  sought,  where  are  we 
to  stop  ?  Who  can  see  the  end  of  this  beginning  ?  Whose  vision 
can  take  in  the  wide  extent  of  that  vast  region  of  uncertainty, 
insecurity,  abounding  in  hidden  unseen  dangers  and  perils,  your 
course  may  lead  to  ?  I  hold,  sir,  that  if  a  law  should  be  passed  by 
the  votes  of  members  now  upon  this  floor  who  may  hereafter  be 
turned  out  because  of  the. illegality  of  their  election,  the  validity 
of  such  law  so  passed  can  never  be  inquired  into  either  by  any 
court  of  the  land,  or  even  by  ourselves,  on  the  ground  of  its  hav 
ing  been  so  passed.  And  though  a  law  may  be  passed  in  a  State 
or  territorial  legislature  by  the  votes  of  members  who  may  after 
ward  be  turned  out,  because  of  the  illegality  of  their  election, 
yet  the  validity  of  such  a  law  can  never  be  questioned  in  conse 
quence  of  that  fact.  But  if  the  principle,  now  advocated  for  the 
first  time  in  our  history,  shall  be  established,  and  the  precedent 
be  followed  up,  you  unhinge  all  legislation  ;  you  bring  every  thing 
like  law  amongst  us  into  uncertaint}7,  doubt,  and  confusion  : 
you  cut  the  "heart-strings,"  as  Coke  says,  of  our  whole  system 
of  government ;  you  take  the  first  step,  and,  if  it  be  pursued,  that 
which  will  prove  to  be  a  fatal  step  towards  political  and  social 
anarchy.  I  enter  my  protest  here  this  day  against  it. 

I  repeat,  sir,  these  are  grave  questions.  I  give  you,  Mr.  Spea 
ker,  and  the  members  of  the  House,  as  my  fellow-judges  in  this 
matter,  my  views  of  the  rules  which  should  govern  us  in  the 
judgment  we  are  to  render  in  this  case.  Weigh  them  as  they 
deserve,  and  give  them  such  consideration  as  the}7  merit. 

But  the  gentleman  at  my  right,  [Mr.  KUNKEL,]  who  addressed 
us  yesterday,  asked,  if  the  allegations  be  true  as  here  made,  that 
a  set  of  usurpers  assumed  to  be  the  legislature  of  the  territory ; 
are  we  to  be  bound  by  that  assumption  ?  I  say  to  him,  no.  .  The 
countenance  of  any  usurpation  and  the  exercise  of  prerogatives, 


SPEECH  IN  THE  KANSAS  ELECTION  CASE.  521 

not  duly  belonging  to  any  body  of  men,  even  ourselves,  is  what  I 
am  against.  There  must  be  something  more  than  a  bare  assump 
tion  of  legislative  authority  to  entitle  the  acts  of  any  body  of  men 
to  be  recognized  as  emanating  from  a  body  clothed  with  power  to 
make  laws.  The  law-making  power  of  this  country  must  rest 
upon  some  better  showing  than  bare  assumption.  It  must  come 
into  being  in  the  proper  and  legally  constituted  way.  This  is 
well  understood  in  America.  We  are  not  by  any  means  legiti 
mists,  in  the  European  sense  of  the  word  ;  but  we  recognize  that 
government  as  legitimate  which  springs  into  existence  by  the  will 
of  the  people,  as  expressed  under  the  forms  of  law  passed  by  the 
regularly-constituted  authority  of  the  land.  A  government  so 
presenting  itself  we  regard  not  only  as  the  government  of  the 
people  de  facto,  but  de  jure. 

And  now,  sir,  how  is  it  with  regard  to  this  legislature  of  Kansas  ? 
We  have  a  law  of  Congress  authorizing  it.  It  is  familiar  to  all. 
That  law  organized  the  territory  of  Kansas  ;  that  law  permitted 
the  people  there,  under  the  direction  of  the  governor,  to  hold 
elections  for  members  of  the  territorial  legislature,  with  power  to 
pass  laws  regulating  the  election  of  a  delegate  to  Congress.  This 
organic  law  of  the  territory  emanated  from  ourselves.  This  law 
we  are  bound  to  recognize.  A  governor  was  appointed  in  pur 
suance  of  it.  The  governor,  the  judiciary,  the  whole  machinery 
of  the  government  there  was  legally  constituted  by  ourselves — by 
Congress ;  and  the  forms  prescribed,  through  which  this  territorial 
body  exercising  legislative  functions  came  into  existence,  emana 
ted  from  the  highest  authority  known  to  us  under  the  constitution. 
These  facts  are  admitted.  No  person  questions  the  public  law 
creating  the  territorial  legislature.  Nobody  questions  the  legal 
appointment  of  Governor  Reeder.  Nobody  questions  the  procla 
mation  he  issued  to  hold  an  election  on  the  30th  of  March,  1855, 
for  a  territorial  legislature  in  pursuance  of  our  law.  These  are 
all  admitted  facts.  If  any  thing  irregular,  then,  attended  the 
election  of  its  members,  it  presented  a  question  to  be  inquired 
into  and  adjudged  by  the  proper  authority  just  as  similar  matters 
are  inquired  into  and  settled  in  other  elections  of  legislative 
bodies — just  as  we  inquire  into  such  matters  pertaining  to  our 
own  organization.  When,  therefore,  it  is  admitted  that  an  elec 
tion  for  members  of  the  territorial  legislature  was  held  in  Kansas 
on  the  30th  of  March,  as  stated  in  pursuance  of  law,  under  the 
direction  of  the  legally-constituted  authorities  of  the  country,  we 
are  bound  to  recognize  the  body  so  coming  into  life  as  legitimate  in 
its  origin.  It  certainly  did  not  spring  from  usurpation ;  nor  does  it 
rest  its  claims  of  legitimacy  upon  bare  assumption.  It  had  its 
birth  in  a  legal  way. 

But  here  comes  the  argument  from  the  other  side  that  it  was 
spurious,  because  the  members  who  constituted  it  were  not 
properly  elected  in  conformity  to  the  laws  under  which  it  was 
created.  Well,  sir,  that  was  a  judicial  question  to  be  settled  and 


522  SPEECH   IK   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 

determined  by  the  lex  parliament,  according  to  the  authorities  I 
have  cited,  and  the  universal  practice  of  this  country  in  like  cases. 
It  does  not  come  within  the  purview  of  the  powers  of  this  House 
to  settle  that  question.  It  was  an  inherent  right  in  the  Houses 
of  the  Kansas  legislature  to  judge  and  decide  upon  the  qualifica 
tions,  elections,  and  returns  of  their  own  members  respectively. 
This  power,  says  Story,  by  universal  practice  in  England  and  in 
this  country,  is  lodged  in  every  legislative  body  to  determine  for 
itself.  It  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  vital  functions  of  the  organism. 
The  question  was  a  judicial  one,  which  somebody  was  to  deter 
mine  ;  and  what  body  was  it  ?  The  courts  of  the  country  (say  all 
the  authorities)  cannot  take  cognizance  of  it.  Governor  Reeder, 
as  it  appears  from  the  papers  before  us,  insisted  that  it  was  his 
right,  under  the  law  empowering  him  to  prescribe  the  rules 
governing  the  election,  to  decide  it ;  and  the  two  Houses  of  the 
legislature  insisted  that  it  was  their  parliamentary  and  legal  right 
to  decide  it.  My  opinion  is,  that  the  Houses  were  correct  in  their 
position.  But,  be  that  as  it  may,  the  merits  of  the  question  be 
fore  us  are  not  affected  by  it  either  way ;  for,  if  Reeder,  as  gover 
nor,  had  the  right,  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that,  out  of  twenty-six 
members  composing  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Kansas,  he, 
as  governor,  claiming  the  right  to  judge  of  this  matter,  did  judi 
cially,  and  not  ministerially,  award  certificates  to  seventeen  of 
these  members,  as  having  been  duly  and  properly  elected  on  the 
30th  of  March,  in  pursuance  of  his  proclamation  duly  and  legally 
made.  And  like  certificates  he  gave  to  ten  out  of  the  thirteen 
members  composing  the  council.  Thus  a  large  majority  of  both 
branches  of  the  legislature  were  adjudged  by  him  to  be  duly 
chosen  and  returned  members  thereof — members  whose  election, 
he  now  says,  was  carried  by  an  invasion,  and  that  they  held  the 
places  which  he  assigned  them  by  nothing  but  usurpation  !  I 
am  not  now  upon  the  question  of  his  estoppel ;  I  am  considering 
the  question  of  his  right  to  judge,  and,  in  that  view,  the  effect  of 
his  judicial  judgment  rendered  in  the  case.  Keep  in  mind  that, 
upon  every  question  before  any  tribunal  which  has  the  sole  and 
absolute  right  to  judge  in  the  matter,  when  the  final  judgment  is 
rendered,  it  is  forever  conclusive  upon  the  points  embraced  in  it. 
Elections  were  held  in  May,  by  order  of  the  governor,  to  fill  the 
places  of  the  nine  members  and  six  councilmen  rejected  by  him 
at  the  March  election.  To  those  elected  in  May  to  fill  those 
places  he  gave  like  certificates.  Every  man  who  took  his  seat  in 
the  legislature  at  its  organization  was  adjudged  and  certified  by 
the  governor  to  be  entitled  to  it.  The  legislature,  therefore,  if 
the  governor  had  the  right  to  judge,  was  legitimately  and  legally 
constituted ;  and  their  claims  to  be  recognized  as  the  proper  law- 
making  power  of  the  territory  rests  not  upon  bare  assumption  or 
usurpation.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Houses  had  the  right 
to  settle  these  questions  touching  their  organization,  the  result  is 
the  same ;  for  they  too,  settled  the  question  the  same  way  as  to 


SPEECH  IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE.  523 

the  original  seventeen  members  of  the  House  and  ten  councilmen, 
and  their  judgment  must  be  conclusive  upon  the  fact  that  a 
majority  of  both  Houses  were  properly  constituted.  In  either 
view,  therefore,  we  may  take  as  to  the  hands  in  which  this  power 
of  judging  was  lodged,  the  question  is  a  closed  one;  it  is  res 
adjudicatse,  and  we  have  no  right  now  to  open  it.  I  repeat,  I  am 
not  now  upon  the  point  of  Reeder's  individual  or  personal  estop 
pel  in  law.  What  I  affirm  is,  that  this  question,  from  admitted 
facts,  is  closed ;  judgment  has  been  rendered,  and  there  is  no 
appellate  jurisdiction  in  this  House,  nor  in  any  other  tribunal. 
We  can  no  more  open  this  question  than  we  can  that  of  the 
proper  organization  of  any  State  legislature. 

The  gentleman  on  my  right  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  [Mr.  KUN- 
KEL,]  said,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  yesterday,  that  we,  this 
House,  have  got  a  right  to  go,  and  have  often  gone,  into  an  inquiry 
into  the  validity  of  the  laws  of  the  States  in  judging  of  elections 
to  this  House.  Sir,  I  do  not  deny  this.  I  admit  that  we  may 
pass  upon  and  judge  of  the  validity  of  any  law  coming  before  us 
in  such  cases,  just  as  any  court  may  do,  and  upon  just  such 
grounds  and  such  grounds  only  as  courts  may  properly  do.  The 
grounds  upon  which  this  inquiry  is  sought  courts  will  never  in 
quire  into,  and  we  have  no  right  to  do  it.  There  are  some  matters 
touching  legislation  and  the  rules  governing  the  law-making  power 
which  must  be  considered  as  closed ;  and  when  judgment  is 
rendered  in  them  it  must  stand  until  the  great  day  of  judgment. 

Mr.  SIMMONS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask  him  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  With  pleasure. 

Mr.  SIMMONS.  I  ask  whether  a  judgment  is  valid  for  any  pur 
pose  whatever,  until  it  be  shown  that  the  party,  in  whose  name  it 
is,  is  the  true  party  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  To  ascertain  the  true  and  proper  party  is  part 
of  the  proceedings  before  judgment.  That  is  one  of  the  matters 
to  be  settled  by  the  judgment,  and  when  once  settled  by  judg 
ment  finally  rendered  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  over 
the  subject-matter,  it,  is  settled  forever.  Whether  the  party  in 
whose  favor  it  be  rendered  be  the  true  party  or  not,  cannot  be 
inquired  into  afterward  or  elsewhere.  And  so  in  this  instance 
persons  presented  themselves  as  the  elected  representatives  of 
the  people  of  Kansas,  in  their  legislature.  They  presented  their 
credentials:  the  governor  claiming  the  right  to  pass  judgment 
judicially  in  their  favor,  certified  that  they  were  the  proper  and 
true  party.  They  then  took  up  their  own  credentials  in  the  usual 
way  of  legislatures,  and  came  to  a  similar  judgment,  as  to  a  large 
majority  in  both  Houses.  That  judgment,  viewed  either  way 
you  please,  is  final  on  that  occasion.  That  is  my  answer  to  the 
gentleman. 

But  the   gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  in  speaking  of  the 


524:  SPEECH  IN   THE   KANSAS  ELECTION   CASE 

inconsistency  of  Governor  Reeder 's  course — for  even  he  seemed 
ready  to  admit  his  great  inconsistencies 

Mr.  KUNKEL.  No,  sir  ;  I  said  it  was  not  necessary  to  my  argu 
ment  to  prove  that  Governor  Reeder  was  consistent. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  And  the  gentleman  added  that  he*  could  not 
speak  for  his  consistency.  Now,  what  I  was  about  to  submit  to 
the  House  is,  whether  anybody  can  defend  his  course  ?  I  intend 
to  speak  of  the  facts  as  they  are  detailed  before  us  in  these 
reports,  and  as  we  know  them  to  be.  He  was  duly  appointed 
governor  of  Kansas.  He  accepted  the  trust  and  was  in  office, 
when,  according  to  his  own  showing,  the  election  which  took 
place  in  that  territory  on  the  30th  of  March  was  held  in  pursu 
ance  of  his  own  proclamation.  Twenty-six  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  thirteen  members  of  the  Legisla 
tive  Council,  were  elected.  These  were  the  numbers  of  which 
the  Houses  were  respectively  composed.  He  assumed  the  right 
to  judge  of  the  election  returns  of  these  members.  The  rules 
governing  the  elections  were  prescribed  by  himself,  and  very 
rigid  ones  they  were.  The  judges  of  elections  were  required  not 
to  allow  any  non-resident  to  vote,  and  to  take  an  oath  that  they 
would  not.  These  returns  were  submitted  to  him,  and  he  exam 
ined  them.  He  ratified  the  returns,  and  gave  certificates  to  sev 
enteen  members  of  the  House,  and  rejected  but  nine.  He  gave 
certificates  to  ten  members  of  the  council,  and  rejected  three. 
He  ordered  a  new  election  to  be  held,  to  fill  the  places  of  those 
vacated  by  himself,  but  the  two  Houses,  as  I  have  stated,  assum 
ing  the  right  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  their  own  members 
after  they  met,  decided  in  favor  of  those  who  had  the  highest 
number  of  votes  on  the  first  election. 

But,  sir,  it  was  three  months  and  upward  from  the  holding  of 
this  March  election  until  the  legislature  met.  He  then  said 
nothing  of  what  we  now  hear  of  the  manner  of  this  election.  But 
he,  as  governor,  upon  being  notified  that  they  were  organized  in 
obedience  to  his  own  call,  addressed  them  as  the  legally  assem 
bled  and  constituted  legislature  of  the  territory.  As  late  as  the 
21st  of  July,  after  the  Houses  had  acted  upon  the  subject  of  the 
contested  seats  in  the  cases  of  the  nine  members  and  three  council- 
men  rejected  by  him,  he  again  addressed  them  in  a  message,  and 
in  it  he  says  nothing  of  an  invasion.  He  says  nothing  of  subju 
gation — nothing  of  "martial  music"  and  "artillery" — nothing  of 
"  border  ruffianism" — nothing  of  their  action  in  the  cases  of  con 
test  referred  to.  But  he  addressed  them  then  as  the  legally  con 
stituted  legislature  of  the  territory.  If,  therefore,  Governor 
Reeder  had  the  right  to  judge  of  the  election  returns,  as  he 
claimed,  was  not  his  acquiescence  in  the  decision  of  the  Houses 
on  matters  pertaining  to  their  organization  an  affirmance  on  his 
part  of  their  judgment  in  those  cases  ?  And  at  his  instance  shall 
we  now  go  behind,  not  only  the  judgment  of  the  Houses  of  the 


SPEECH  IN  THE   KANSAS  ELECTION  CASE.  525 

legislature  on  these  questions,  but  his  affirmance  of  that  judg 
ment  by  an  official  act  of  Governor  Reeder  himself. 

But,  sir,  I  wish  to  notice  some  other  matters  that  have  dropped 
in  this  debate.  Another  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  on  my 
right,  [Mr.  CAMPBELL,]  gave  as  a  reason  why  this  investigation 
should  be  gone  into — why  we  should  set  aside  Governor  Reeder's 
own  judgment  in  this  case — that  he  was  a  gentleman  of  high 
character — a  man  of  worth,  standing  high  in  the  estimation  of 
the  people  of  his  State,  and  that  this  investigation  was  due  him 
as  such.  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say  to  the  gentleman  that,  if  what 
Governor  Reeder  now  says  be  really  true,  he  certainly  has  for 
feited  and  lost  all  just  claims  he  may  have  had  to  the  high  and 
exalted  opinions  of  his  countrymen ;  he  certainly  shows  himself 
guilty  of  the  most  flagrant  and  gross  dereliction  of  duty  that  any 
public  officer  in  the  whole  history  of  the  country  was  ever  guilty 
of.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  must  admit  that  if  the 
territory  committed  to  his  charge  was  invaded  by  an  armed  force, 
by  which  the  legally  qualified  voters  of  the  territory  were  driven 
from  the  polls  in  every  district  save  one,  and  the  polls  seized  by 
non-residents,  who  by  violence  carried  the  election — if  that  be 
true  which  Governor  Reeder  now  affirms  to  be  true — if  that  took 
place  which  he  now  says  did  take  place,  and  he  silently  sat  by 
and  saw  all,  and  afterward  recognized  these  invading  hordes  as 
the  duly  elected  legislature  of  the  people,  as  he  certainly  did, 
then  he  was  guilty  of  a  base  disregard  of  his  official  duty,  with 
out  a  parallel  in  our  history,  and  one  that  no  depth  of  infamy 
and  degradation  would  be  too  low  to  assign  him  to  for. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Pennsylvania.  If  the  gentleman  from  Georgia 
will  allow  me,  I  desire  to  ask  him,  if  these  things  can  be  substan 
tiated,  why  deny  to  Governor  Reeder  this  investigation  ?  Gov 
ernor  Reeder  is  ready  to  prove  that  his  course  was  consistent, 
honorable,  and  proper.  I  ask  that  the  gentleman  will  hear  him, 
and  then  decide. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Governor  Reeder  can  never  show  that  his 
course  was  proper  and  becoming  an  officer  in  his  position,  if 
what  he  states  be  true.  I  am  not  for  this  investigation,  because 
I  do  not  think  it  is  right  to  make  it.  I  do  not  regard  it  as  a 
part  of  my  duty  to  make  improper  investigation  to  sustain  a 
man  who,  by  his  own  statement,  shows  himself  to  have  been 
guilty  of  a  gross  disregard  of  his  official  duty.  So  far  as  he  is 
concerned,  his  showing  makes  no  favor  with  me.  When  a  man 
comes  here,  and  on  his  own  statement,  out  of  his  own  mouth, 
makes  it  appear,  if  his  statement  is  to  be  credited,  that  he  was 
guilty  of  the  grossest  neglect  of  duty,  it  does  not  commend  him 
to  my  favor.  Such  statements  or  calls  for  investigation  have 
not  much  force  in  inducing  me  to  follow  his  example  in  the  com 
mission  of  a  wrong,  or  in  disregarding  my  official  duty.  But 
what  I  was  about  to  say  was,  that  if  his  statement  be  true,  he  is 
not  now  entitled  to  that  high  encomium  which  the  gentleman 


526  SPEECH   IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 

pronounced  upon  him.  If  he,  as  governor  of  a  territory,  per 
mitted  such  unheard  of  outrages  to  be  committed  there  without 
a  word  of  complaint,  but  giving  his  sanction  to  the  whole  of 
them — which  upon  his  own  showing,  you  must  admit  he  did — 
then  he  is  not  entitled  to  that  high  position  which  the  gentleman 
says  he  occupied  in  the  estimation  of  the  people  of  Pennsylvania 
before  he  left  that  State. 

It  may  be  true  that  Governor  Reeder,  while  in  Pennsylvania, 
was  a  gentleman  of  good  character  and  high  standing.  That 
does  not  show  that  he  is  entitled  to  be  held  in  the  same  estima 
tion  now.  His  course,  by  which  he  may  have  justly  forfeited 
that  character,  we  have  before  us.  Neither  is  his  present  posi 
tion,  contrasted  with  his  former,  an  isolated  or  singular  one.  A 
gentleman  once  occupied  a  position  in  this  country  second  to  no 
one  then  living.  For  thirty-six  ballots  he  held  the  votes  of  this 
House,  in  even  balance  for  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  coun 
try.  He  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  a  head  quite  as  high 
as  that  of  Jefferson  himself.  Who  stood  higher  then  than  he  ? 
Who  shone  brighter  then  than  these  two  men  ?  Twin-brothers  in 
politics,  as  two  morning  stars  they  appeared  rising  together  in 
the  day-dawn  of  our  nation's  glory ;  but  disappointed  hope,  and 
blasted  ambition,  caused  Aaron  Burr — like  Lucifer — like  the 
archangel,  standing  high  in  heaven,  next  to  the  throne  itself,  to 
fall,  and  from  his  fall  to  rise  no  more.  It  may  be  so  with  Gov 
ernor  Reeder.  A  man  he  may  have  been  of  high  character,  fair 
fame,  and  high  ambition;  but  his  ambition  has  "overleaped 
itself,"  and  fallen  on  the  other  side.  History,  I  dare  say,  will 
assign  him  his  true  position.  There  let  him  rest.  We  are  to  deal 
with  the  facts  as  they  appear  before  us. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  BINGHAM,]  the  other  day, 
said  the  legislation  of  the  territory  of  Kansas  was  null  and  void 
upon  its  face.  He  wished  no  better  evidence  of  the  invalidity  of 
the  laws  than  that  which  is  to  be  found  upon  their  inspection. 
He  read  one  of  their  acts,  which  makes  it  penal  for  any  individual 
to  steal  a  slave,  or  to  induce  him  to  run  away  from  his  master, 
or  to  harbor  such  slave.  Such  a  code  he  pronounced  more  infa 
mous  than  that  of  Draco,  and  asked  whether  we  were  bound  to 
recognize  as  valid  any  such  law  as  this,  and  some  others  he  men 
tioned.  Why,  sir,  there  is  a  law  in  the  gentleman's  own  State, 
Ohio,  that  punishes  any  person  who  entices  an  apprentice  to  run 
away,  or  who  harbors  him  after  he  has  run  away.  Whoever  har 
bors  an  apprentice  escaping  from  the  tyranny,  perhaps,  of  his 
master — an  orphan  boy,  it  may  be — whoever  gives  him  bread  in 
his  wanderings — as  the  gentleman  was  very  pathetic  I  must  fol 
low  him — under  the  Ohio  law  is  subject  to  indictment  and  pun 
ishment.  The  man  that  would  give  one,  thus  in  distress,  shelter 
and  a  cup  of  water 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  Did  Ohio  law  make  it  a  felony  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  sir;  but  it  makes  it  a  crime.     The  only 


SPEECH   IN  THE   KANSAS  ELECTION   CASE.  527 

difference  between  your  law  and  that  of  Kansas  is  as  to  the  grade 
of  crime  and  the  extent  of  punishment. 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  What  law  does  the  gentleman  refer  to  1 
Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  refer  to  the  law  in  reference  to  apprentices, 
and  the  enticing  them  away.  I  am  not  complaining  of  the  law, 
but  only  showing  how  the  gentleman's  declamation  can  be  an 
swered.  Every  community,  sir,  must  judge  for  itself  in  all  such 
cases,  both  as  to  the  grade  of  the  crime  and  the  punishment  to 
be  inflicted.  But  to  the  gentleman,  in  this  case,  I  would  say  as 
Scotland's  poet  said  to  the  "unco  guid"  of  his  day — 

"  Oh,  ye  who  are  so  good  yourself, 

So  pious  and  so  holy ; 
Ye've  nought  to  do  but  mark  and  tell 
Your  neighbor's  faults  and  folly. 


"  Ye  see  your  state  with  theirs  compared, 

And  shudder  at  the  niffer  ; 
But  cast  a  moment's  fair  regard, 
What  makes  the  mighty  differ  !" 

It  is  only  on  the  point  as  to  the  extent  of  the  punishment  that 
the  Ohio  laws,  in  this  instance,  differ  from  those  of  Kansas. 
Now  what  I  maintain  is,  that  if  any  of  these  laws  of  the  territory 
be  not  good  laws  or  wise  laws  suited  to  the  people  there,  let  them 
be  changed  by  the  people  in  the  regular  legislative  way.  We 
belong,  sir,  to  a  government  of  law  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
good  'citizen  to  sustain  the  law  as  it  exists,  until  it  is  changed 
and  modified  by  the  proper  authority,  or  until  he  is  ready  for 
revolution.  What  characterizes  the  United  States  and  distin 
guishes  us  above  all  other  nations  more  distinctively  than  this — 
that  here  we  have  a  government  of  laws  emanating  from  those  who 
are  controlled  and  governed  by  written  constitutions  ?  If  our 
laws  are  wrong  we  have  but  to  go  to  the  polls — to  the  ballot-box 
— to  have  them  amended,  corrected,  and  suited  to  the  public 
wants.  To  the  ballot-box  and  not  the  cartridge-box,  the  people 
should  go  to  settle  questions  touching  the  character  of  their  laws. 
"  Inter  arma  silent  leges."  If,  by  the  Kansas  law  regulating  the 
election  of  a  delegate  on  this  floor,  any  person  is  allowed  to  vote 
who  were  not  entitled  to  vote  under  their  organic  law,  and  any 
such  person  in  the  late  election  did  so  vote,  and  Governor  Reeder 
had  gone  into  the  contest,  and  had  come  here  showing  us  that 
such  illegal  and  improper  votes  had  been  polled  for  the  sitting 
member,  and  that  he  had  received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes 
of  the  territory,  I  should  not  have  hesitated  in  doing  what  I  could 
to  give  him  the  seat.  But  he  did  no  such  thing.  He  and  his 
friends  set  themselves  up  in  opposition  to  the  law,  denied  its  force 
and  validity,  and  are  now  attempting  to  overthrow  the  only  gov 
ernment  and  system  of  laws  in  that  territory  to  which  the  people 


528 


SPEECH   IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 


can  look  with  confidence  and  security  for  the  protection  of  their 
lives,  liberty,  and  property. 

This  clamor,  sir,  about  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  being 
opposed  to  General  Whitfield's  election  here  will  not  do :  it  will 
not  bear  the  test  of  notorious  facts.  If  it  were  so,  why  had  he 
no  competitor  at  the  polls  ?  Where  was  Reeder  that  he  did  not 
show  his  relative  strength  with  him  before  the  people  ?  This  is 
not  the  first  time  that  General  Whitfield  was  a  candidate  before 
them.  He  was  elected  in  November,  1854.  At  that  time  he  had 
competition.  I  have  before  me  the  official  poll  made  out  and  en 
tered  upon  the  executive  minutes  by  Governor  Reeder  himself. 
Here  are  the  entrie  s  : 

"December  4,  1854. — The  judges  of  the  several  election  districts  made 
return  of  the  votes  polled  at  the  election  held  on  the  29th  day  of  Novem 
ber  last,  for  delegates  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  from  which  it  appeared  that  the  votes  in  the  said  several  districts 
were  as  follows : 


DISTRICTS. 

2 

ll 

f£   >• 

*l 
i-i 

J.  A.  Whitfield 
received  — 

IR.  P.  Flenniken 
received  — 

John  B.  Chapman 
rec  eived  — 

Charles  Robinson 
received  — 

S.  C.  Pomroy 
received  — 

P.  Blood 
received  — 

W.  L.  Garrison 
received  — 

First    

46 

188 

51 

9 

2 

2 

1 

1 

235 

20 

6 

_ 

. 

. 

. 

Third  

40 

. 

7 

1 

. 

> 

_    , 

. 

Fourth  

140 

21 

_ 

. 

_ 

m 

_ 

_ 

Fifth  

63 

4 

15 

. 

_ 

» 

_ 

_ 

105 

. 

_ 

. 

_ 

_ 

. 

_ 

597 

_ 

7 

Eighth  

16 

_ 

_ 

•  _ 

m 

_ 

_ 

"NTinth 

9 

31 

Tenth  

2 

6 

29 

•• 

_ 

m 

• 

_ 

Eleventh  

237 

_ 

3 

5 

. 

_ 

. 

_ 

Twelfth     

31 

9 

_ 

1 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

Thirteenth  

69 

. 

1 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

130 

23 

" 

" 

Fifteenth  

267 

_ 

39 

_ 

m 

_ 

Sixteenth  

222 

_ 

80 

_ 

. 

_ 

. 

_ 

49 

~m 

13 

2,258 

248 

305 

16 

2 

2 

1 

1 

"December  5,  1854. — On  examining  and  collating  the  returns,  J.  W. 
Whitfield  is  declared  by  the  governor  to  be  duly  elected  delegate  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States ;  and  same  day  the  certifi 
cate  of  the  governor,  under  the  seal  of  the  territory,  issued  to  said  J. 
W.  Whitfield  of  his  election. 

Here  the  number  of  votes  appear  officially  and  in  full,  in  all 
the  election  districts  in  that  territory,  numbering  from  one  to 


SPEECH  IN  THE   KANSAS  ELECTION   CASE.  529 

seventeen.  There  is  the  poll,  examine  it — for  J.  W.  Whitfield, 
2,258 ;  for  J.  A.  Whitfield,  which  was  by  mistake  for  his  name, 
248;  making  his  real,  entire  vote  2,506;  and  for  Flenniken,  his 
highest  opponent,  only  305.  The  whole  number  of  votes  polled 
were  2,833  ;  so  that  Whitfield  in  that  contest  received  more  than 
eight  times  the  number  of  votes  polled  for  Flenniken,  his  highest 
opponent,  who  was  the  candidate  of  Eeeder  and  his  party,  and 
who  now  pretend  to  be  a  majority  in  the  territory.  At  the  last 
election  Whitfield  got  2,936  votes,  without  opposition. 

Mr.  CRAIGE.  What  has  become  of  Flenniken  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Flenniken  flunked !  The  last  I  heard  of  him 
he  was  on  his  way  back  east,  where  he  came  from.  [Great 
laughter  and  applause  upon  the  floor  and  in  the  galleries.]  He 
has  never  been  in  the  territory  since,  as  I  have  been  informed. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  think  that  the  investigation  now  sought 
is  right,  for  the  reasons  I  have  given.  I  am  opposed  to  it  in  toto. 
But  if  it  is  to  be  gone  into,  would  it  not  be  much  better  to  send 
out  a  commission,  as  is  suggested  by  the  minority  of  the  com 
mittee  of  elections  ?  Nay,  I  go  further.  Would  it  not  be  much 
better  to  send  a  committee  of  the  House — the  committee  of 
elections  themselves,  if  you  please  ?  .  If  we  are  to  go  through 
with  this  exceedingly  complicated  affair,  would  it  not  be  better 
for  the  committee  to  go  to  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  wit 
nesses  that  may  have  to  be  examined,  than  to  bring  such  a 
"cloud"  of  them  to  the  committee? — as  the  " mountain  cannot 
convenient^  come  to  Mohammed,  is  it  not  better  for  Mohammed 
to  go  to  the  mountain  ?"  Send  the  committee  out  there 
if  a  full  investigation  is  what  you  are  determined  on,  with  the 
same  power  in  the  premises  ;  and  let  them  make  their  investiga 
tions  upon  the  "battle  grounds,"  if  they  are  to  be  found  in  the 
vicinage  of  the  voters.  If  you  are  going  a-fishing  for  all  the 
facts  in  real  earnest,  why  not  make  a  complete  drag  of  it  at  once  ? 
Send  out  the  arms  of  your  net  far  and  wide,  and  make  a 
thorough  haul  over  the  whole  broad  territory,  and  bring  to  land 
every  thing,  whether  fish,  eel,  or  serpent  ? 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  conclusion,  I  am  against  this  resolution 
for  another  reason.  I  am  against  it  because  it  is  but  a  part  and 
parcel  of  a  policy  now  pursued  by  some  men  in  Kansas  and  else 
where,  which  cannot  be  looked  upon  in  any  other  light  than  revo 
lutionary  in  its  character.  .Gentlemen  cannot  be  mistaken  in  this 
particular.  There  are  men  in  Kansas  who  seem  to  have  resolved 
on  rebellion.  They  were  among  the  original  enemies  of  the  Kan 
sas  bill.  When  their  leaders  were  beaten  in  this  House  and  in 
the  Senate,  and  that  great  measure  of  sectional  and  national 
equality  was  carried  against  and  over  their  votes,  they  betook 
themselves  to  new  schemes  to  prevent  its  potent  influence  in 
allaying  agitation,  and  to  make  it  the  occasion  of  continued  strife 
and  discord.  The  territory  was  not  left  to  settlement  by  the 
people  of  all  the  States  equally  and  fairly,  as  the  laws  of  climate. 
34 


530  SPEECH  IN   THE   KANSAS   ELECTION   CASE. 

soil,  locality,  production,  and  population  might  determine ;  but 
emigrants  from  distant  points  were  stimulated,  if  not  hired,  to 
go  there  with  no  purpose  but  mischief.  Their  main  object  was 
not  to  become  bona  fide  settlers,  but  to  control  the  first  elections. 
In  this  they  were  beaten,  as  fully  appears  in  the  present  sitting 
delegate's  first  election,  which  I  have  shown.  The}''  were  also 
beaten  in  the  first  election  of  members  to  the  legislature,  as  ap 
pears  from  the  certificates  before  alluded  to,  given  to  the  mem 
bers  of  that  body  by  Governor  Reeder  himself.  And  now, 
disappointed,  discontented,  and  disaffected  at  these  series  of 
defeats  in  their  designs  and  objects,  they  are  about  to  betake 
themselves  to  the  last  resort  of  malcontents,  a  trial  of  physical 
force.  Arms  are  collected — fortifications  are  built — munitions 
of  war  are  provided — Sharpe's  rifles  are  procured — volunteers 
are  invoked — aid  and  assistance  from  a  distance  are  looked  for — 
money  is  raised — and  hostility  against  the  existing  legally-con 
stituted  authorities  is  openly  avowed.  The  telegraphic  dispatches 
of  this  morning  announce  that  the  government  proclaimed  by 
the  Topeka  convention  is  to  go  into  operation  at  all  hazards.  All 
these  movements  are  lawless,  insubordinate,  and  insurrectionary. 
Governor  Reeder  may  be  considered  as  at  the  head  of  them,  the 
commander-in-chief  of  the  whole  of  them ;  and  his  movement 
here  can  but  be  viewed  as  a  part  of  his  general  plan  of  operations. 
Any  countenance  he  may  seem  to  receive,  therefore,  at  our  hands, 
can  but  favor  his  ulterior  designs.  This  must  be  all  he  looks  for. 
He  cannot  expect  to  be  voted  a  seat  on  this  floor. 

Now,  sir,  let  us  pause  and  reflect.  How  far  in  this  business 
do  you  intend  to  proceed  ?  Are  you  going  to  back  those  de 
luded  men  in  Kansas,  whom  Governor  Reeder  represents  here, 
while  they  stand  with  arms  in  their  hands'?  We  see  by  the 
President's  proclamation  that  he  intends  that  the  laws  of  that 
territory  shall  be  executed,  as  it  is  his  duty  to  do.  Now,  which 
side  are  you  going  to  take,  when  Sharpe's  rifles  and  Federal 
artillery  are  brought  in  array  against  each  other  in  this  threat 
ened  conflict  ?  Ought  we  to  do  any  thing  calculated  to  inspirit 
or  encourage  any  misguided  portion  of  the  people  of  this  country 
to  put  themselves  in  open,  hostile,  armed  resistance  to  the  laws  ? 
What  is  this  but  treason  as  expounded  by  our  courts  ?  Our  his 
tory,  as  a  united  people,  dates  back  for  more  than  seventy  years ; 
and  no  conviction  for  this  highest  crime  known  to  society  has 
ever,  as  yet,  marred  that  history.  No  nation  perhaps  ever  ex 
isted  in  the  world  so  long,  of  which  the  same  can  be  said.  I  feel 
the  prouder  of  my  country  because  it  is  so ;  and  long  may  the 
day  be  hence  before,  if  ever,  such  a  case  shall  occur.  I  trust 
that  my  eyes,  at  least,  will  never  see  the  light  of  that  day  when 
American  soil  shall  be  stained  with  a  traitor's  blood.  Some  per 
sons  in  Kansas  may  have,  under  their  delusion,  gone  very  far ; 
but  I  trust  that  the  locus  penitentia  in  every  such  heart  will  be 
found  before  the  last  extreme  step  be  taken.  Let  us  be  careful, 


SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL   TO  ADMIT   KANSAS.  531 

at  any  rate,  that  we  do  nothing  here  in  this  matter  which  may 
tend  to  encourage  them  to  take  that  step.  Let  it  be  our  aim  and 
our  object  rather  to  "  pour  oil  on  the  troubled  waters."  Ours  is 
a  government  of  laws.  Let  us,  then,  in  our  action  in  this  case, 
set  a  good  example,  not  only  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  but  to  the 
whole  country,  by  adhering  strictly  ourselves  to  the  principles 
and  precepts  of  the  laws  established  for  the  government  of  all 
our  deliberations  and  proceedings  here.  This  investigation  pro 
poses  to  lead  us  into  an  inquiry  into  subjects  over  which  I.  think 
I  have  clearty  shown  we  have  no  proper  or  legitimate  jurisdiction. 
Let  us  not,  then,  assume  powers  and  prerogatives  which  do  not 
belong  to  us,  in  our  attempting  to  see  if  another  body  has  not 
done  it ;  and,  particularly,  let  us  not  do  it  for  bare  party  pur 
poses,  when  the  only  effect  of  it  may  be  to  put  in  hazard  the 
peace  and  quiet  of  the  country.  These,  sir,  are  my  views  and 
opinions  upon  the  proposition  before  us. 


SPEECH    ON    THE    BILL    TO    ADMIT   KANSAS   AS   A 
STATE  UNDER  THE  TOPEKA  CONSTITUTION. 

[NOTE  : — In  this  speech,  Mr.  Stephens  took  occasion  to  review  and  set 
at  rest  the  charges,  as  to  the  mariner  the  Kansas  Act  passed  against  the 
rules.  Also  his  views  on  slavery  at  large.  ED.] 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES. 

JUNE  28,  1856. 

The  House  having  under  consideration  the  bill  reported  from  the  com 
mittee  on  territories,  providing  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  with  the  constitution  prepared  at  Topeka  by  the  free- 
State  party, 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said ;  I  propose,  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I  proceed 
to  what  I  have  arisen  mainly  to  say  on  this  occasion,  to  ask  the 
consent  of  the  House  to  allow  me  now  to  offer  the  amendment 
which  I  stated  yesterday  I  wished  to  propose  to  the  bill  now 
before  us. 

Mr.  WASHBURN,  of  Maine.  If  the  gentleman  asks  that  consent 
now,  I  shall  object  to  it,  as  I  shall  at  all  times. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  On  the  motion  to  commit  the  bill  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  the  amendment 
is  not  in  order,  unless  by  unanimous  consent. 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  I  understand  that  to  be  a  side  measure,  in 
tended  to  destroy  the  bill,  and  I  shall  object  to  it  now,  and  at  all 
times. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  state  to  the  gentleman  that  I  have  no  side 
blows  for  this  bill,  nor  is  my  amendment  intended  as  any  side 


532  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

measure.  I  wish  my  proposition  to  come  distinctly  before  the 
House  as  a  substitute  for  the  pending  bill.  I  am  opposed  out 
and  out  to  this  bill  as  it  now  stands.  I  want  no  misunderstand 
ing  on  that  point.  I  will,  however,  vote  for  the  substitute  ;  and 
what  I  want  is  a  direct  vote  between  the  bill  now  pending,  and 
the  substitute  offered  as  an  amendment.  But  as  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  will  not  allow  me  to  offer  my  proposition  as  an 
amendment,  I  now  move  to  amend  the  motion  to  commit  this  bill  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  by  adding 
to  it,  "  With  instructions  to  report  this  amendment  in  lieu  of  the 
original  bill ;"  in  other  words,  with  instructions  to  strike  out  all 
in  the  original  bill,  and  to  insert  my  amendment  in  lieu  thereof. 
That  is  the  motion  which  I  submit  to  the  House  and  upon  it  I 
shall  proceed  with  what  I  have  to  say. 

It  is  immaterial  to  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  can  get  a  vote  in  the 
House  on  the  proposition  submitted  by  me,  whether  it  goes  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  or  not.  I 
am  myself  prepared  to  v6te  on  it  to-day,  either  in  the  House,  or 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  But  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  it  had  better  go  to  the  committee.  We 
can  then  take  up  this  amendment,  and  consider  it  in  detail.  It 
may  be  some  gentleman  would  suggest  modifications,  which  I 
would  accept.  We  can  then  discuss  the  merits  of  the  original 
bill.  Its  friends  can  amend  that,  if  they  wish.  My  amendment 
can  be  put  in  such  form  as  a  majority  of  the  committee  may 
desire,  if  a  majority  be  favorable  to  its  objects.  I  therefore  shall 
vote  for  the  reference.  But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr. 
CAMPBELL,]  the  other  day  said,  that  the  motion  to  refer  or  com 
mit,  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  [Mr.  DUNN,]  and 
which  is  now  pending,  was  equivalent,  if  successful,  to  a  defeat 
of  the  bill.  The  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASHBURN,]  also 
followed  in  the  same  line.  Now,  I  told  these  gentlemen,  day 
before  yesterday,  and  I  state  it  again  to  the  House,  that  I  do 
not  consider  the  motion  to  commit  the  bill  to  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  if  carried,  as  equivalent  to  a 
defeat  of  the  measure  at  all.  By  no  means,  sir.  What  is  the  ar 
gument  of  those  who  say  a  reference  of  the  bill  is  tantamount  to 
its  defeat  ?  Nothing  better  than  this,  as  argued  b}7  the  gentleman 
from  Maine,  to  wit :  that  all  the  friends  of  the  Kansas  bill,  two 
years  ago,  when  that  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  considered  it  as  equivalent  to  its 
defeat.  That  is  his  argument,  and  the  authority  adduced  by  him 
to  sustain  it.  Sir,  it  is  immaterial  to  me  what  certain  friends  of 
the  Kansas  bill  may  have  thought  would  be  the  effect  of  its  ref 
erence,  when  it  was  referred  If  they  consider  that  reference  as 
equivalent  to  its  defeat,  the  sequel  showed  that  they  were  in  error. 
That  is  all.  It  was  referred.  It  was  considered  two  weeks  in 
committee,  and  it  was  then  passed. 

Mr.  WASHBURN.     Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  say  that  that 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS.  533 

wa^s  simply  because  they  broke  down  the  rules  of  the  House  in 
two  instances.  If  they  had  not,  they  never  could  have  got  that 
bill  out  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     Will  the  gentleman  state  what  two  instances. 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  In  the  first  place,  by  deciding  that  under  the 
119th  rule  you  might  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the  bill. 
In  the  second  place,  by  rising  and  reporting  the  bill  to  the  House 
when  there  was  no  quorum  voting,  as  everybody  knows. 

Mr.  RICHARDSON.  The  gentleman  from  Maine  is  ^otally  mis 
taken  when  lie  says  there  was  no  quorum. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  will  let  me 
proceed.  The  gentleman  from  Maine  is  mistaken  in  both  his  in 
stances.  The  record  shows  that  the  tellers,  Mr.  CLINGMAN  and 
Mr.  SAPP,  reported  103  in  favor  of  the  motion,  and  22  against  it. 
That  is  more  than  a  quorum — one  hundred  and  eighteen  was  a 
quorum — one  hundred  and  twenty-five  voted.  Though  a  great 
many  present  refused  to  vote,  nwre  than  a  quorum,  however,  did 
vote  on  the  motion  to  strike  out.  It  does  not  require  a  quorum 
to  vote  on  a  motion  to  rise,  as  every  one  knows.  And  as  far  as 
the  violation  of  the  1 1 9th  rule  in  concerned,  I  have  this  to  say 
to  the  gentleman — as  I  said  the  day  before  yesterday — that 
nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  every  thing  done  in  the  commit 
tee  on  the  passage  of  the  Kansas  bill  under  the  119th  rule,  was 
legitimate  and  proper  ;  and  that  no  rule  of  this  House  was  violated 
or  overrode  on  that  occasion.  This  I  intend  to  show  beyond 
cavil  or  doubt.  The  charge  that  there  was  no  quorum  voting  is 
answered  by  the  record,  as  I  have  stated  ;  then  as  to  the  two 
other  charges — for  besides  the  charge  relating  to  the  119th  rule 
now  made,  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  WASHBURN,]  or  some 
other  gentleman,  said,  two  days  ago,  that  there  was  another  rule 
violated.  What  one  I  do  not  know — for  no  one  was  mentioned 
— but  the  statement  was,  that  the  committee  had  violated  the 
rules  of  the  House  by  setting  aside  other  bills  having  priority  in 
the  order  of  business  on  the  calendar  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill.  That  was  one  statement ;  and  I  think  it  was  also  said  that 
upward  of  a  hundred  bills  were  thus  set  aside  to  reach  this  one. 
Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  the  rules  of  the  House  before  me,  and 
ask  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  135th  rule: 

"  In  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  the  bills  shall 
be  taken  up  and  disposed  of  in  their  order  on  the  calendar ;  but  when  ob 
jection  is  made  to  the  consideration  of  a  bill  a  majority  of  the  committee 
shall  decide,  without  debate,  whether  it  shall  be  taken  up  and  disposed  of, 
or  laid  aside ;  provided,  that  general  appropriation  bills,  and,  in  time  of 
war,  bills  for  raising  men  or  money,  and  bills  concerning  a  treaty  of 
peace,  shall  be  preferred  to  all  other  bills  at  the  discretion  of  the  commit 
tee  ;  and  when  demanded  by  any  member,  the  question  shall  first  be  pui 
in  regard  to  them." 

Even  in  times  of  war,  appropriation  bills,  and  bills  relating  to 


584  SPEECH    ON    THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

treaties  of  peace,  have  no  other  preference,  except  that  the  ques 
tion  of  taking  them  up  first  shall  be  first  put.  A  majority  may  lay 
even  them  aside. 

Sir,  could  a  rule  be  written  more  plainly  ?  Can  language  be  more 
clear  or  more  distinct  than  this — that  when  the  House  goes  into 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  when 
the  first  bill  in  order  is  read  by  the  clerk,  and  a  gentleman  objects 
to  taking  it  up,  it  is  then  submitted  to  the  committee  whether  it 
will  be  takQji  up  or  not ;  and  a  majority  of  the  committee  have  the 
expressly-granted  power  to  determine,  without  debate,  whether 
they  will  then  act  on  it,  or  lay  it  aside  for  other  business  ;  and 
so  on  to  the  second,  and  so  to  the  third,  and  to  the  fourth,  and  to 
the  one  hundred  and  fiftieth,  if  you  please  ?  Was  it  not  perfectly 
competent  for  a  majority  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
state  of  the  Union,  when  the  Kansas  bill  was  in  committee,  to 
pass  over  other  bills,  and  take  up  that  bill  when  they  wished  to 
do  so? 

This  they  did.  Each  bill  was  laid  aside  as  it  was  reached. 
The}^  had  a  right  to  do  it.  They  violated  no  rule  in  doing  it. 
The  number  of  bills  laid  aside  to  reach  it  was  only  eighteen,  I 
think.  But  if  the  number  had  been  legion — if  there  had  been  one 
hundred,  or  five  hundred,  or  a  thousand,  it  would  have  made  no 
difference. 

Sir,  the  rule  in  this  case  is  as  clear  as  it  could  be  made ;  and 
the  action  of  the  committee  on  that  occasion  was  strictly  in 
order.  This  I  maintain,  and  defy  an  answer  or  reply  to  it. 

Now,  then,  sir,  as  to  the  119th  rule. 

When  the  committee  on  that  occasion  had  laid  aside  the  first 
bill,  and  the  second  bill,  and  the  third  bill,  and  so  on,  until  they 
had  come  to  the  Kansas  bill,  the  eighteenth  in  order — which  they 
had  a  right  to  do — they  took  it  up  for  consideration ;  and  after  it 
had  been  discussed  for  two  weeks  in  committee,  which  was  as 
long  as  was  thought  proper  by  the  House,  the  119th  rule  was 
resorted  to,  to  stop  debate  in  committee  and  bring  the  subject 
before  the  House  for  a  vote.  That  rule  is  as  follows : 

"  A  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  words  of  a  bill  shall  have  prece 
dence  of  a  motion  to  amend ;  and,  if  carried,  shall  be  equivalent  to  its 
rejection." 

Under  this  rule,  a  motion  was  made  by  myself  in  committee  to 
strike  out  the  enacting  words  of  the  Kansas  bill — a  motion  which 
took  precedence  of  all  motions  to  amend,  as  the  rule  says.  The 
motion  was  properly  put ;  and  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  one 
hundred  and  three  for  it,  to  but  twenty-two  against  it,  as  I  have 
said.  Where,  then,  was  there  any  violation  of  the  rules  in  this  ? 
But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  CAMPBELL,]  who  says  he 
wishes  to  reply  to  what  I  say,  insisted  the  day  before  yesterday 
that  this  119th  rule  never  was  intended  to  apply  in  committee. 

The  rule,  in  its  language,  was  too  clear,  too  overwhelming,  too 


SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL   TO    ADMIT   KANSAS.  535 

unanswerable;  but  to  avoid  its  conclusiveness  against  him,  he  said 
it  was  made  to  apply  to  the  House,  and  not  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  etc.  Well,  sir,  let  us  see  how  this  subterfuge  will  avail  the 
gentleman.  The  history  of  this  rule,  as  given  in  our  Manual,  is 
as  follows : 

aln  1814,  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  struck  out  the  first  and  only  sec 
tion  of  a  bill,  and  so  reported  to  the  House.  Mr.  Speaker  Cheves  refused 
to  receive  the  report,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  tantamount  to  a  rejection 
of  the  bill,  which  the  committee  had  not  power  to  do."  Just  as  the 
gentleman  now  says.  "  After  this,  that  the  merit  of  questions  might  be 
tested  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  rule  119  was  adopted." 

This  history  clearly  shows  that  it  was  expressly  adopted  for 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  etc. 

I  have  produced  this  additional  authority  to  show  that  there 
was  no  violation  of  the  rule  on  the  occasion  alluded  to — that  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  Kansas  bill  did  just  exactly  what 
the  rule  intended  that  they  might  do,  and  fully  empowered  them 
to  do.  But  gentlemen  say,  if  this  rule  was  intended  to  be  applied 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  why  has  it  never  been  put  in 
practice  before  ?  That  was  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Maine. 

Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  my  reply  to  him  is,  that  it  has  been  put  in 
practice  before.  It  was  adopted  in  1822.  Ten  days  after  its 
adoption,  on  the  2d  of  March,  1822,  first  session  of  the  Seventeenth 
Congress,  I  find  the  journal  of  the  House  record  thus: 

"  The  House  took  up  and  proceeded  to  consider  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Benjamin  Freeland  and  John  M.  Jenkins  ;  and  the  amount  reported  there 
to  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  on  the  14th  instant,  being 
read  as  follows  :  'striking  out  the  enacting  clause  of  said  bill,' 

"  The  question  was  put  on  concurring  with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  in  the  said  amendment, 

"And  passed  in  the  affirmative." 

Here  the  committee  did  the  very  same  thing,  ten  days  after  the 
rule  was  adopted,  that  was  done  on  the  Kansas  bill.  What  did 
the  House  do  ?  Did  they  say  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
had  acted  improperly  ?  No,  sir.  The  Journal  says  :  "  The  ques 
tion  was  taken  upon  concurring  with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  said  amendment,  and  it  passed  in  the  affirmative." 

I  find  in  the  first  session  of  the  Eighteenth  Congress,  on  the 
22d  of  May,  this  record  : 

"  The  question  was  then  taken  to  concur  with  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  striking  out  the  enacting  words  of  the  bill  from  the  Sen 
ate,  entitled,  'An  act  relative  to  the  Patent  Office,  and  to  the  salary  of 
the  Superintendent  thereof,' 

"And  passed  in  the  affirmative." 

Again,  sir,  in  the  first  session  of  the  Twenty-First  Congress,  I 
find  on  the  journal  this  record : 

"  The  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  bill  (No.  127)  for  the  relief  of  Walter  Livingston,  deceased,  and  after 


536  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

some  time  spent  therein,  the  Speaker  resumed  the  chair,  and  Mr.  Storrs, 
of  New  York,  reported  the  same,  with  the  enacting  clause  stricken  out, 

"  The  question  was  then  put,  that  the  House  do  concur  with  the  Com 
mittee  of  the  Whole  House  in  striking  out  the  enacting  words  of  said  bill, 

"And  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas  84,  nays  59." 

I  find  in  the  same  Congress,  in  the  action  of  the  House  on  the 
bill  for  the  relief  of  John  Robinson,  that 

"The  question  was  then  put  to  concur  with  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  in  striking  out  the  enacting  words  of  the  bill  (No.  175)  for 
the  relief  of  John  Kobinson, 

"And  passed  in  the  affirmative. 

"  So  the  land  bill  was  rejected." 

Sir,  I  shall  not  go  on  with  this  record.  It  is  sufficient  for  me 
to  state  to  those  gentlemen  who  complain  of  my  motion  under 
this  rule,  that  their  not  knowing  that  such  a  motion  had  ever  been 
made  before  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  an  argument  of  much 
merit  or  force.  I  show  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  House,  and  the 
country,  the  rule.  No  man  can  question  that.  I  show  you,  also, 
its  history ;  and  from  that,  that  it  was  made  for  just  such  a  pur 
pose  as  the  one  I  applied  it  to.  No  man  can  now  gainsay  that. 
I  go  further,  and  show  you  the  practice  of  the  House  under  it. 
No  man  can  any  longer  question  that.  Then,  sir,  how  can  gen 
tlemen  rise  up  here,  and  say  that  the  passage  of  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  was  accomplished  by  overriding  the  rules  of  the 
House  ?  Gentlemen  may  have  been  surprised  and  astonished  at 
the  parliamentiary  tactics  practiced  under  the  rule  ;  they  may 
never  have  dreamed  of  how  the  friends  of  a  measure,  in  committee, 
could  vote  to  strike  out  the  enacting  words — thus  apparently  de 
feating  it — and  then,  when  it  was  so  reported  to  the  House,  re 
verse  their  position,  disagree  to  the  report  of  the  committee  strik 
ing  out  the  enacting  words,  and  then  pass  it.  They  may  not 
have  understood  the  process  by  which  a  bill  might  be  temporarily 
apparently  killed  by  its  friends  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  it  out,  and  then  revived  again  in  the  House, 
by  disagreeing  with  the  report  of  the  committee ;  but  this  is  the 
whole  of  it.  This  is  the  ground  of  all  this  clamor  about  the  viola 
tion  of  the  rules  of  the  House,  in  the  passage  of  the  Kansas  bill — 
for  it  is  nothing  but  clamor. 

The  charge  of  a  violation  of  rules  has  not  the  semblance  of  a 
fact  to  rest  upon.  And  let  no  man  hereafter  say  that  sending  a 
bill  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  equivalent  to  its  defeat. 
Our  rules  requiring  this  committee,  and  directing  how  business 
shall  be  disposed  of  in  it,  are  wise  and  proper.  And  the  rules, 
when  properly  administered,  work  harmoniously  for  the  perfection 
and  despatch  of  legislation.  It  is  only  those  who  do  not  under 
stand  them  who  see  confusion  and  mystery  in  them.  Where, 
then,  was  the  wrong  or  the  fraud  perpetrated  on  the  rules  in  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Kansas  bill  ?  It  exists  only  in  the  fancy  of  gentle 
men  who  declaim  so  violently  on  the  subject.  I  said,  sir,  I  in- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL    TO   ADMIT   KANSAS.  537 

tended  to  vindicate  the  action  both  of  the  committee  and  the 
House  on  that  occasion,  and  put  the  matter  beyond  all  future  cavil 
or  doubt.  This,  I  think,  I  have  done.  Now,  sir,  I  intend  also,  with 
the  same  confidence,  to  vindicate  the  principles  of  that  bill  against 
the  equally  unfounded  assaults  which  have  been  made  upon  them. 
What,  sir,  are  those  assaults  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  CAMPBELL]  said  the  other  day, 
and  again  says,  that  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill  was  the 
origin  of  all  the  troubles  in  the  countiy.  Sir,  what  troubles  does 
he  allude  to  ?  What  troubles  have  we  upon  us  ?  Standing  in  my 
place  in  the  Hall  of  the  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  I 
ask  to-day,  what  troubles  is  the  country  laboring  under  ?  Were 
any  people  of  the  world  ever  more  prosperous  than  the  people  of 
the  United  States  now  are  ?  We  are  at  peace  with  all  other  na 
tions  ;  we  hear  of  110  complaint  about  Federal  taxes  or  high  tariffs  ; 
we  hear  of  no  disarrangement  of  the  currency  or  of  the  finances 
of  the*  country ;  we  hear  of  no  clamor  against  banks  ;  our  tables 
are  not  loaded  down  with  petitions  or  remonstrances  against 
grievances  of  any  sort ;  thrift  and  plenty  seem  to  be  smiling  over 
the  land  from  one  extent  to  the  other.  Our  commerce  was  never 
more  flourishing ;  agriculture  never  yielded  a  more  bountiful  sup 
ply  from  the  bosom  of  the  earth  to  the  tillers  of  her  soil  than  it 
now  does,  nor  was  the  average  value  of  products  ever  higher. 
Industry,  in  every  department  of  business,  whether  upon  the 
ocean  or  the  land,  never  had  more  inducements  to  ply  its  ener 
gies,  not  only  for  competency  and  comforts,  but  for  the  accumu 
lation  of  riches  and  wealth.  Never  did  labor,  in  all  its  branches, 
receive  more  readily  than  it  now  does  fair  and  justly  compen 
sating  wages.  Our  internal  and  foreign  trade  was  never  in  a 
more  flourishing  condition.  What  are  the  troubles,  then,  of  which 
the  gentleman  speaks  ?  Why,  sir,  if  one  could  cast  his  eye  over 
this  wide  republic  at  this  time,  and  see  the  thrift  and  prosperity 
in  every  department  of  industry,  arising  from  our  benign  institu 
tions,  he  would  almost  be  compelled  to  exclaim,  that  all  the  trou 
bles  of  which  we  hear  grow  out  of  nothing  but  that  exuberance  of 
liberty  and  multitude  of  blessings  which  seem  to  be  driving  us  on 
to  licentiousness.  This  we  see  in  the  mobs  at  Cincinnati,  Louis 
ville,  New  Orleans,  in  this  city,  and  in  San  Francisco.  The  laws 
have  been  set  aside ;  force  has  been  resorted  to ;  arms  have  been 
used ;  and  men  have  been  slain.  But  the  absorbing  theme  now 
is  the  "  civil  war,"  as  it  is  called,  in  Kansas.  This  is  the  an 
nouncement  made  in  a  neighboring  city,  the  commercial  metropo 
lis  of  this  Union,  the  other  night,  according  to  a  report  of  their 
proceedings  which  I  find  in  a  newspaper,  to  a  large  crowd  of  peo 
ple  there  assembled.  I  see  it  was  proclaimed  that  civil  war  was 
raging  in  Kansas  ;  and  that  that  assembly  gave  shouts  of  applause 
at  the  announcement !  These  are  the  troubles,  I  suppose,  of 
which  the  gentleman  speaks — troubles  produced  not  by  this  Kan 
sas  bill,  but  by  the  mischievous  designs  and  reckless  purposes  of 


538  SPEECH    ON"    THE    BILL    TO    ADMIT    KANSAS. 

those  who,  in  their  efforts  to  defeat  the  quiet  and  peaceful  opera 
tion  of  the  sound  purposes  of  that  bill,  have  for  some  time  been 
engaged  in  their  unholy  work  of  attempting  to  get  up  civil  war 
in  the  country,  and  can  now  shout  in  applause  at  even  the  most 
distant  prospect  of  success. 

This,  sir,  is  the  work  of  that  class  of  restless  malcontents,  who 
have  for  years  been  endeavoring  to  produce  a  sectional  conflict  in 
this  country;  who  have  no  regard  for  the  constitutional  equality 
of  the  States  of  this  Union ;  who  repudiate  the  most  sacred  obli 
gations  of  that  compact  which  binds  us  together,  and  who  have 
proclaimed  that  the  constitution  itself  is  a  league  with  death  and 
a  covenant  with  hell !  How  far  they  shall  be  permitted  to  go  on 
with  their  work  until  checked  by  a  sound  reactive  public  senti 
ment — how  far  they  shall  get  sympathy  and  co-operation  from 
those  whom  they  are  now  attempting  to  mislead — how  far  they 
may  be  successful  in  their  long  cherished  wish  for  civil  strife,  I 
cannot  say.  That  is  a  problem  for  the  future  to  settle ;  tliat  de 
pends  upon  the  virtue,  intelligence,  and  integrity  of  the  people. 
But  that  they  ought  not  to  succeed — that  they  ought  not  only 
to  be  discouraged,  but  rebuked  and  condemned  in  every  part  of 
this  country,  and  lay  every  man  who  has  a  spark  of  patriotism  in 
his  bosom,  as  well  in  the  North  as  in  the  South,  I  this  day  main 
tain.  But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  says  all  this  comes  from  the 
Kansas  bill.  How  ?  In  what  way  ? 

What  is  there  wrong  in  that  Kansas  measure  ?  It  has  been 
said  that  it  is  a  fraud.  It  has  been  said  that  it  is  the  greatest  of 
iniquities.  It  has  been  said  that  it  is  a  crime  against  God.  It 
has  been  said  that  it  is  a  crime  against  nature.  Well,  sir,  what 
is  this  fraud,  this  iniquity,  this  crime  against  nature  and  against 
God  ?  It  is  the  simple  declaration  of  the  principle  that  the  people 
of  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska — the  pioneer  freemen 
there — our  own  brothers  in  flesh  and  blood — going  there  from 
every  State  of  the  Union,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  that  distant 
frontier — there  to  build  up  new  homes  for  themselves  and  their 
posterity — should  have  the  right,  without  limitation  or  restriction 
from  any  quarter,  save  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to 
form  and  mould  just  such  institutions  for  their  own  government 
as  they  pleased — a  right  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  our 
State  governments,  and  upon  which  the  whole  republic,  in  its 
several  parts,  is  built  and  established.  This  is  the  fraud,  this  is 
the  iniquity,  this  is  the  great  crime  of  crimes,  the  security  to  the 
people  of  the  territories  of  the  right  of  self-government  under  the 
constitution.  The  amount  of  the  crime  is,  that  freemen  shall  be 
permitted  to  make  such  constitutions,  republican  in  form,  for 
their  own  government,  without  dictation  or  control  from  any  other 
power,  as  they  please.  Tell  it  wherever  you  go,  that  this  was  the 
monstrous  outrage  committed  by  an  American  Congress  in  1850, 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  on  the  territories  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico,  and  repeated  by  the  same  body  in  1854,  on  the 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL  TO   ADMIT   KANSAS.  539 

territories  of  Nebraska  and  "bleeding  Kansas!"  This  is  the 
whole  of  it — nothing  more  and  nothing  less.  These  troubles  we 
now  hear  of — these  efforts  to  get  up  civil  war — these  shouts  at 
the  announcement  that  civil  war  has  already  commenced — are 
but  part  and  parcel  of  that  spirit  which  animated  a  portion,  and 
only  a  portion,  of  the  opposition  to  the  Kansas  bill,  during  the 
pendency  of  that  measure  in  this  House.  That  same  spirit  at  the 
North  that  had  so  bitterly  opposed  the  establishment  of  this 
great  principle  of  territorial  policy  in  1850  could  not  bear  the 
idea  of  its  being  carried  out  in  the  future. 

I  recollect  very  well,  sir,  that  while  the  Kansas  bill  was  pro 
gressing  here,  a  newspaper  in  the  city  of  New  York,  edited  by  a 
man  of  great  ability,  untiring  energy  and  industry,  and  who  is 
now  the  head  and  front — the  animating  spirit  of  the  present 
opposition  and  civil  war  champions,  undertook  to  lecture  this 
House  as  to  our  duty  in  regard  to  that  bill.  We  were  told  then  by 
him  what  an  enormous  wrong  it  would  be ;  and  when  the  measure 
was  about  to  pass,  an  editorial  in  that  paper  reached  here,  from 
which  I  wish  to  present  some  extracts,  to  show  that  it  is  the  same 
spirit  now  at  work : 

"  We  urge,  therefore,  unbending  determination  on  the  part  of  the 
northern  members  hostile  to  this  intolerable  outrage,  and  demand  of  them, 
in  behalf  of  peace — in  behalf  of  freedom — in  behalf  of  justice  and  humanity 
— resistance  to  the  last.  Better  that  confusion  should  ensue — better  that 
discord  should  reign  in  the  national  councils — letter  that  Congress  should 
break  up  in  wild  disorder — nay,  better  that  the  Capitol  itself  should  blaze 
by  the  torch  of  the  incendiary,  or  fall  and  bury  all  its  inmates  beneath  its 
crumbling  ruins,  than  that  this  perfidy  and  wrong  should  be  finally 
accomplished." 

This  is  the  language  of  the  New  York  Tribune  in  reference  to 
the  Kansas  bill  a  few  days  before  it  passed.  Yes,  sir,  even  then 
that  editor  declared  that  it  was  better  that  this  Capitol  should  be 
burnt  by  the  torch  of  an  incendiary — better  that  the  government 
should  go  into  dissolution,  than  that  the  people  colonizing  and 
settling  Kansas  and  Nebraska  should  be  just  as  free  as  the  peo 
ple  of  New  York,  or,  as  he  states  it,  than  that  this  act  of  perfidy 
and  wrong  should  be  finally  accomplished.  What  wrong  did  the 
act  contain  ?  Wrong  to  whom  ?  to  whom  was  there  any  thing  in 
it  either  wrong  or  unjust  ?  Was  it  wrong  to  the  people  of  the 
South,  one  large  section  of  the  Union,  to  permit  them  to  enjoy  an 
equal  and  fair  participation  of  the  public  domain  purchased  by  the 
common  blood  and  common  treasure  of  all?  Was  it  wrong  or 
unjust  to  permit  the  people  of  New  York,  Massachusetts,  and 
other  States  of  the  North  going  into  a  new  territory,  to  be  as 
free  there  as  they  were  in  their  native  homes  ?  Was  it  wrong 
or  unjust  to  allow  all  from  all  the  States,  who  might  be  disposed 
to  quit  the  old  States,  and  seek  to  better  their  fortunes  by  cut 
ting  down  the  forests  of  the  West,  turning  up  its  virgin  soil,  and 
making  the  wilderness  to  blossom  as  the  rose,  to  enjoy  the  same 


540  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT  KANSAS. 

rights  which  their  fathers  did  in  the  early  formation  of  all  our 
present  State  constitutions  and  governments?  Whom,  I  say,  did 
the  bill  wrong  ?  To  whom  did  it  deal  any  injustice  ?  Was  it 
the  slave,  the  African,  whom  his  southern  master  might  take 
there  ?  How  could  it  be  unjust  even  to  him  ?  Is  not  his  condi 
tion  as  much  bettered  by  new  lands  and  virgin  soils  as  that  of  his 
master?  Is  not  expansion  of  that  portion  -of  southern  popula 
tion  quite  as  necessary  for  their  comfort  and  well-being  as  it  is 
for  the  whites  ?  Would  you  keep  them  hemmed  in  in  their 
present  limits,  until  subsistence  shall  fail,  and  starvation  shall 
effect  the  objects  of  a  misguided  humanity  ? 

Without  stopping  here  to  say  a  word  upon  the  subject  of 
southern  society,  and  the  relation  which  the  negro  there  sustains 
to  the  white  man,  either  as  to  the  necessity  of  that  relation,  or 
its  wisdom  or  propriety,  does  it  work  any  wrong  or  injury  to  the 
slave  to  take  him  from  old  lands  to  new  lands  ?  Is  not  his  con 
dition  bettered  by  the  change  ?  And  have  we  not  new  lands 
enough  for  all?  Your  Topeka  convention,  which  formed  the 
pretended  free-state  constitution  now  before  us,  proposed  to 
exclude  the  negro  and  mulatto  forever  from  that  country.  Upon 
the  score  of  humanity,  then,  even  toward  the  "  poor  negro,"  about 
whom  so  much  sympathy  is  attempted  to  be  excited,  1  ask, 
which  does  him  the  greater  wrong,  the  Kansas  bill,  or  the  project 
of  •  your  free-state  constitution  ?  Who,  to  him,  is  the  good 
Samaritan  in  this  case  ?  The  free-soil  Levite,  who  would  leave 
him  to  starve  without  land  to  work  ?  or  his  humane  southern 
master,  who  is  willing  to  provide  both  land  and  shelter,  food  and 
raiment  ?  Where,  then,  is  the  wrong  of  this  bill  ?  It  consists  in 
nothing  but  permitting  the  freemen  of  our  own  race  to  settle  this 
question  of  the  status  of  the  African  amongst  themselves,  as 
they  in  their  wisdom  and  patriotism  may  think  best  for  the  hap 
piness  of  both  races,  just  as  the  freemen  of  our  own  race  did  in 
each  of  the  old  thirteen  States  of  the  Union. 

But,  sir,  the  House  did  not  heed  this  lecture  of  the  editor. 
The  bill  passed  this  body ;  it  passed  the  Senate  ;  it  received  the 
constitutional  approval  of  the  executive,  and  became  the  law  of  the 
land.  The  revolutionary  spirit,  however,  which  invoked  the 
burning  of  the  Capitol,  did  not  stop  with  defeat  in  all  three 
of  the  departments  of  legislation.  Members  of  Congress,  with 
others,  beaten  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  beaten  in  the 
Senate,  failing  in  their  threats  and  denunciations  of  the  execu 
tive,  betook  themselves  forthwith  to  plotting  schemes  to  defeat 
the  will  of  the  people  as  constitutionally  expressed.  Societies 
were  formed,  one  of  them  by  members  of  this  House,  immediately 
after  the  bill  passed;  money  was  raised;  circulars  were  issued 
— all  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  sending  people  to  Kansas  to 
prevent  the  peaceful  and  quiet  operation  of  the  wise  and  beneficent 
principles  of  the  territorial  law — movements  having  a  direct 
tendency  to  kindle  this  civil  war  of  which  we  now  hear. 


SPEECH   ON   THE  BILL   TO   ADMIT  KANSAS.  541 

The  Capitol  fortunately  was  not  burnt — that  suggestion  did 
not  take.  Disorder  did  not  reign  here — that  suggestion  did  not 
take.  But  bodies  of  men  were  organized — not  allowing  the 
legitimate  laws  of  nature,  of  climate,  and  of  soil  to  determine  the 
character  of  the  pioneer  population  from  all  the  States  alike  who 
might  choose  to  make  settlement  there.  Men  were  sent  out  in 
large  companies,  with  arms  and  munitions  of  war;  Sharpe's 
rifles  were  sent ;  artillery  was  sent.  What  for  ?  Did  these 
colonists  go  to  Kansas  as  our  forefathers  sought  homes  at  Ply 
mouth,  St.  Mary's,  Jamestown,  and  Savannah  ?  Or  did  they  not 
rather  go  as  the  train-bands  of  Cortes  and  Pizzaro  went  forth 
thirsting  for  the  conquest  of  the  Montezuinas  and  the  Incas  ? 
Was  not  their  sole  object  to  effect  by  force  and  violence  what 
they  had  failed  to  do  by  legislation  ?  What  other  meaning  can 
be  put  upon  the  following  manifesto  which  was  published  in 
the  "Herald  of  Freedom,"  their  organ  at  Lawrence,  the  head 
quarters  of  these  emigrants  in  the  territory :  . 

"  Come  one,  come  all,  slaveocrates  and  nullifiers  ;  we  have  rifles  enough, 
and  bullets  enough,  to  send  you  all  to  your  (and  Judas's) '  own  place.'  '  If 
you're  coming,  why  don't  you  come  along?'  " 

Was  not  this  a  direct  invitation  to  arms?  And  whatever 
troubles  or  disturbances  exist  in  Kansas,  let  them  not  be  charged 
to  the  Kansas  bill,  but  to  those  who  have  sworn  in  their  wrath 
that  that  bill  never  shall  work  out  its  natural  and  legitimate 
results,  if  they  can  prevent  it.  As  well  might  the  wars  about 
points  of  doctrine  and  religious  creeds  which  have  disgraced 
Christendom,  be  charged  upon  the  heavenly  principles  of  the 
gospel.  Christ  himself  said  that  it  was  impossible  but  that 
offences  in  this  world  of  wickedness  would  come.  When  bad 
men  are  at  work,  they  cannot  be  prevented.  The  principles  of 
that  bill  are  in  no  way  responsible  for  any  outrages  or  trampling 
upon  rights  by  parties  on  the  other  side  of  the  controversy,  got 
up  and  provoked  in  that  territory  by  designing  men  outside,  for 
mischievous  purposes.  And  the  friends  of  that  bill — those  who 
stand  pledged  to  its  principles — condemn  outrages  on  either  or 
both  sides  alike. 

But  a  word,  sir,  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  difficulties. 
Are  they  not  greatly  exaggerated  and  magnified  ?  Let  us  look 
at  the  facts.  Some  men,  it  is  true,  have  been  killed — some  on 
both  sides.  And  what  else  could  have  been  expected  ?  What 
other  result  could  have  been  looked  for  by  those  instigating  the 
movements  I  have  alluded  to  ?  The  first  man  killed  in  the  terri 
tory  was  Davis.  He  fell  by  the  hands  of  those  calling  them 
selves  free-state  men.  Then  Dow,  a  free-state  man  was  killed  by 
Coleman ;  but  the  quarrel  between  them  arose  about  a  land  claim. 
It  was  a  private  and  personal  matter.  Coleman  immediately 
gave  himself  up  to  the  legal  authorites,  claiming  to  have  acted 
in  self-defence.  Whether  he  did  or  not,  I  do  not  know,  and  will 


542  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL    TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

not  pretend  to  say ;  but  a  friend  of  Dow,  of  the  name  of  Bran 
son,  having  made  threats  of  avenging  his  death,  was  arrested 
under  a  peace  warrant,  and,  while  in  the  hands  of  an  officer,  was 
rescued  by  a  party  of  free-state  men.  Warrants  were  taken 
out  for  these,  and  they  took  shelter  in  Lawrence,  where  they 
put  themselves  in  defiance  of  the  civil  authorities.  The  posse 
was  called  out  to  aid  in  the  arrest,  and  this  led  first  to  the  seige 
of  Lawrence,  and  then  to  the  capitulation  of  December  last.  In 
this  war,  no  lives  were  lost.  Two  or  three  other  homicides  had 
been  committed  in  the  territory ;  but  in  all,  from  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  territory,  up  to  the  attempted  assassination  of  Sheriff 
Jones,  I  think  not  exceeding  half  a  dozen  !  In  what  part  of  tlie 
United  States,  sir,  in  the  same  length  of  time,  with  the  same 
population  they  have  in  Kansas  have  there  been  fewer  murders 
or  deaths  by  violence  ?  How  many  were  killed  in  the  riots  last 
year  in  Cincinnati  ?  How  many  in  Louisville,  Kentucky  ? 

I  venture  to  say  to-day,  that  with  all  this  clamor  about  civil 
war  in  Kansas,  more  lives  have  not  been  lost  there,  since  the 
organization  of  the  territory,  than  have  been  in  several  of  the 
large  city  elections  of  the  United  States  within  the  last  twelve 
months.  It  is  not  my  wish  to  make  light  of  these  things,  but 
to  take  a  calm  and  dispassionate  view  of  them.  A  strong  and 
general  tendency  to  disregard  law  and  order  is  one  of  the  most 
lamentable  evils  of  the  day.  It  is  not  confined  to  Kansas,  but  it 
is  seen  and  felt  everywhere.  And  our  object,  and  that  of  all  good 
men,  should  be  to  check  it  rather  than  excite  it. 

Then,  sir,  as  to  the  election  in  Kansas  and  the  laws  passed  by 
their  legislature.  One  word  upon  this  point.  The  first  election 
was  held  there  for  a  delegate  to  Congress  in  November,  1854. 
That  there  were  illegal  votes  on  both  sides -I  have  no  doubt ;  but 
I  believe  it  is  admitted  by  every  one  that,  notwithstanding  the 
efforts  of  the  emigrant  aid  companies  to  prevent  it,  General 
Whitfield  had  much  the  larger  number  of  the  legal  votes  of  the 
territory,  and  was  duly  elected.  In  March  afterward  greater 
efforts  were  made  to  carry  the  legislature.  The  result  was  the 
commission  or  certificate  of  election  by  Governor  Reeder  himself 
to  a  large  majority  of  both  branches  of  that  body.  They  were 
therefore  legalty  constituted  as  a  legislative  body.  There  may 
have  been  illegal  voting  on  both  sides,  as  there  is  doubtless  in  all 
our  elections.  But  upon  the  well-settled  and  fixed  principles  on 
which  all  our  representative  institutions  rest,  and  without  a 
maintenance  of  which  there  can  be  neither  "  law  nor  order,"  that 
is  now  a  closed  question.  The  laws,  therefore,  of  that  legislature 
must  be  observed  and  obeyed  until  repealed  or  modified  by  legis 
lative  power,  or  set  aside  by  the  courts  as  void.  And  upon  the 
character  of  these  laws  I  wish  to  make  but  a  passing  remark. 
The  gentleman  from  Indiana,  [Mr.  COLPAX,]  pointed  out  quite  a 
number  of  them  the  other  day,  which  he  said  were  very  bad  ones. 
Well,  sir,  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  their  respective  merits. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS.  543 

Perhaps  some  of  them  are  bad ;  it  would  be  an  extraordinary 
code  if  it  were  otherwise.  I  know  the  advocates  of  the  present 
government  in  the  territory — the  law-and-order  party  there — 
do  not  themselves  approve  of  all  of  them.  I  will  read  what 
they  say  on  the  subject : 

"  The  law  for  the  protection  of  slave  property  has  also  been  much  mis 
understood.  The  right  to  pass  such  a  law  is  expressly  stated  by 
Governor  Reeder  in  his  inaugural  message,  in  which  he  says  :  'A  terri 
torial  legislature  may  undoubtedly  act  upon  the  question  to  a  limited  and 
partial  extent,  and  may  temporarily  prohibit,  tolerate,  or  regulate  slavery 
in  the  territory,  and  in  an  absolute  or  modified  form,  with  all  the  force 
and  effect  of  any  other  legislative  act,  binding'until  repealed  by  the  same 
power  that  enacted  it.'  There  is  nothing  in  the  act  itself,  as  has  been 
charged,  to  prevent  a  free  discussion  of  the  subject  of  slavery.  Its  bear 
ing  on  society,  its  morality  or  expediency,  or  whether  it  would  be  politic 
or  impolitic  to  make  this  a  slave  State  can  be  discussed  here  as  freely  as 
in  any  State  in  this  Union,  without  infringing  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 
law.  To  deny  the  right  of  a  person  to  hold  slaves  under  the  law  in  this 
territory  is  made  penal ;  but,  beyond  this,  there  is  no  restriction  to  the 
discussion  of  the  slavery  question  in  any  aspect  in  which  it  is  capable  of 
being  considered.  We  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  approving  of  all 
the  laws  passed  by  the  legislature  ;  on  the  contrary,  we  would  state  that 
there  are  some  that  we  do  not  approve  of,  and  which  are  condemned  by 
public  opinion  here,  and  which  will  no  doubt  be  repealed  or  modified  at 
the  meeting  of  the  next  legislature.  But  this  is  nothing  more  than  what 
frequently  occurs,  both  in  the  legislation  of  Congress  and  of  the  various 
State  legislatures.  The  remedy  for  such  evils  is  to  be  found  in  public 
opinion,  to  which,  sooner  or  later,  in  a  government  like  ours,  all  laws  must 
conform. 

Mr.  COLPAX.  What  is  the  date  of  that  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Last  November.  Now,  sir,  I  have  examined 
this  whole  code  of  laws,  and  as  a  whole,  some  few  exceptions 
out,  I  say  that  no  State  in  the  Union  has  better  ones.  There 
are  some  in  it  I  do  not  approve — there  are  some  in  all  the  codes 
I  have  ever  seen  that  I  do  not  approve.  I  will  not  go  to  the 
gentleman's  State,  or  to  any  other  gentleman's  State,  to  find  laws 
that  I  do  not  approve.  We  have  plenty  of  them  in  my  own  State. 
And  the  gentleman  ought  to  feel  highly  blessed  if  he  has  none  in 
Indiana  that  he  disapproves.  We  have  a  great  many  in  Georgia 
I  do  not  approve.  There  is  one  in  particular  which  I  fought  in 
the  legislature  -and  opposed  before  the  courts  with  all  the  power 
that  I  had.  It  was  a  law  making  it  penal  to  bear  concealed 
deadly  weapons.  I  am  individuallj'  opposed  to  bearing  such 
weapons.  I  never  bear  weapons  of  any  sort ;  but  I  believed  that 
it  was  the  constitutional  right  of  every  American  citizen  to  bear 
arms  if  he  chooses,  and  just  such  arms,  and  in  just  such  way, 
as  he  chooses.  I  thought  that  it  was  the  birthright  of  every 
Georgian  to  do  it.  .1  was  defeated  in  our  legislature.  I  was 
defeated  before  our  courts.  The  question  went  up  to  the  highest 
judicial  tribunal  in  our  State,  the  Supreme  Court,  which  sustained 
the  law.  In  that  decision  all  had  to  acquiesce.  Sir,  the  people 


544  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

in  all  the  States  have  to  obey  the  laws  as  pronounced  and  ex 
pounded  by  the  courts.  The  difference  between  a  republic  and  a 
monarchy  is,  that  the  one  is  a  government  of  laws,  subject  to  be 
changed  by  the  people  ;  the  other  is  a  government  dependent 
upon  the  caprice  or  whim,  and  arbitrary  will  of  one  man.  And 
when  the  people  of  a  republic  array  themselves  against  their  laws, 
the  first  step  is  into  anarchy,  and  then  comes  monarchy.  The 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  is  sufficiently  answered  by 
the  address  of  his  own  party  adopted  at  Pittsburg,  though  those 
who  issued  it  seemed  not  to  be  conscious  of  the  effect  of  the  admis 
sion.  That  address,  after  specifying  the  same  objectionable 
laws  in  the  Kansas  code  which  he  has,  says : 

"  That  these  despotic  acts,  even  if  they  had  been  passed  by  a  legisla 
ture  duly  elected  by  the  people  of  the  territory,  would  have  been  null  and 
void,  inasmuch  as  they  are  plainly  in  violation  of  the  Federal  constitution, 
is  too  clear  for  argument.  Congress  itself  is  expressly  forbidden  by  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  to  make  any  laws  abridging  the  freedom 
of  speech  and  of  the  press ;  and  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  territorial 
legislature,  deriving  all  its  power  from  Congress,  should  not  be  subject  to 
the  same  restrictions." 

The  latter  is  a  very  clear  proposition,  to  my  mind.  Neither 
Congress  nor  a  territorial  legislature  can  pass  any  law  abridging 
the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press.  This  is,  indeed,  too  clear 
for  argument.  I  indorse  that  part  of  the  Pittsburg  platform. 
But  not  a  single  disturbance  in  the  territory  has  grown  out  of 
either  of  these  laws  complained  of  as  despotic.  But  if  there  had — 
if  these  laws  be  so  clearly  unconstitutional  and  so  manifestly 
violative  of  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  why  should 
not  any  party  aggrieved  refer  the  question  to  the  judicial  tribu 
nals  ?  If  the  case  is  so  clear,  why  not  go  to  the  courts  ?  There 
are  Federal  courts  in  the  territory;  and  an  appeal  can  be  taken 
to  the  same  high  tribunal  that  all  of  us  in  such  matters  have  to 
appeal  to  in  the  last  resort,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio  (interrupting).  I  rise  to  propound  a 
question,  if  it  is  entirely  agreeable  to  the  gentleman  from  Georgia, 
and  not  otherwise. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Perfectly  agreeable ;  but  I  hope  the  gentleman 
will  not  take  much  of  my  time. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  was  similarly  responded  to  on  a  former  oc 
casion,  and  I  shall  take  warning  and  occupy  but  a  moment  of 
the  gentleman's  time.  Why  did  not  you,  and  those  who  sought 
to  disturb  the  time-honored  compromise  of  our  fathers  of  1820, 
if  they  regarded  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  as  uncon 
stitutional,  resort  to  the  courts  to  test  its  constitutionality  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  There  is  a  case  of  that  sort  now  before  the  Su 
preme  Court. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Why,  instead  of  bringing  all  this  trouble  on 
the  country,  did  he  not  then  resort  to  the  courts? 


SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL  TO   ADMIT  KANSAS.  545 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Why,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  first  my  duty  as  a 
legislator,  believing  it  to  be  wrong,  to  vote  to  repeal  it,  and  I  did 
so  [laughter]  ;  and  if  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had  not 
repealed  it,  and  I  had  been  personally  affected  by  it  in  the  terri 
tory,  then  I  might  have  resorted  to  the  courts. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Did  not  the  gentleman  vote  to  repeal  it  be 
cause  of  its  unconstitutiouality? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Standing  as  it  did,  I  did,  for  that  and  other 
reasons.  As  long  as  it  stood  as  a  regulation  founded  on  the 
principle  of  a  division  of  the  territory,  I  was  willing  to  abide  by 
it ;  but  when  it  was  abandoned  and  repudiated  as  such,  it  was, 
in  my  judgment,  an  odious  and  unjust  restriction.  But  I  do  not 
wish  the  gentleman  to  divert  me  from  the  line  of  argument  I  was 
pursuing. 

Mi*.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  voted  to  repeal  it  in  1854  be 
cause  it  was  unconstitutional,  why  did  he  vote  to  fasten  it  upon 
Texas  in  1846,  unless,  in  the  meanwhile,  there  was  a  change  in 
the  constitution  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  For  the  very  reason  that  I  have  just  stated. 
In  1845,  on  the  annexation  of  Texas,  I  voted  for  it,  upon  the 
principle  of  a  division  of  the  territory.  Congress  has  a  right  to 
pass  all  needful  laws  and  regulations  for  the  territory  as  property. 
So  said  Mr.  Madison.  This  includes  the  power  to  divide,  if  neces 
sary  or  needful  for  public  peace  and  harmony.  When  I  voted 
for  it,  it  was  upon  that  principle.  And,  sir,  it  was  in  1850,  after 
the  gentleman's  party  had  repeatedly— in  1846,  184?,  1848,  1849, 
and  1850 — denied,  repudiated,  and  scouted  at  what  they  now  call 
the  time-honored  compromise  of  our  fathers  of  1820,  that  I  voted 
for  the  re-establishment  of  the  old  principle  in  our  territorial 
policy,  of  leaving  the  public  domain  open  for  the  free  and  equal 
settlement  and  colonization  of  the  people  from  all  the  States 
alike,  without  congressional  limitations  or  restrictions  upon  any. 
This  principle  was  re-established  in  1850 — after  the  one  proposed 
in  1820  had  been  abandoned — and  this  principle  I  voted  to  carry 
out  in  1854  in  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  explain  to  the  House  and 
to  the  country,  how  it  is  that  a  measure  may  be  constitutional 
which  excludes  slavery  on  one  side  of  a  given  line,  in  a  terri 
tory  belonging  to  the  people  of  the  States  in  common*  and  un 
constitutional  on  the  other  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  My  explanation  of  the  point  the  gentleman 
makes  is  this.  Upon  the  principle  of  a  division  of  the  territory 
as  public  property  between  the  two  sections,  it  might  be  consti 
tutional  to  set  aside  a  portion  to  one,  by  fixed  lines  and  bounda 
ries,  while  the  appropriation  of  the  whole  of  it  to  that  section 
would  be  manifestly  wrong,  unjust,  and  therefore  unconstitu 
tional.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  the  division  of  the  surplus  revenue 
— public  property — among  the  States,  the  part  assigned  to  each, 
on  division  fairly  and  justly  made,  was  constitutionally  held. 
35 


546  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

But,  if  some  States  had  taken  all,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest, 
that  would  have  been  manifestly  unjust,  and  therefore  unconsti 
tutional.  But  I  have  given  my  views  at  large  upon  this  subject 
once  before  this  session. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Well  then 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do  not  wish  the  gentleman  to  divert  me  from 
my  argument  by  a  continuation  of  questions  upon  other  subjects. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  hope  I  may  be  fortunate  enough  to  get  the 
floor  at  the  expiration  of  the  gentleman's  hour,  and  therefore  will 
not  press  my  inquiries  now  on  this  interesting  point. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Now,  sir,  just  here  I  wish  to  say  a  word  more 
about  "  that  time-honored  compact  of  our  fathers,''  which  it  is 
said  has  been  violated.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say  that  the  fathers  who 
made  this  republic,  from  the  beginning  of  it,  from  the  date  of 
the  constitution  and  up  to  1820,  never  in  a  single  instance  ex 
ercised  the  power  of  excluding  the  migration  of  slaves  from  any 
of  the  States  of  this  Union  to  the  common  territory.  The  gen 
tleman  now  claims  to  follow  the  fathers  of  the  republic.  Well, 
I  suppose  General  Washington,  Mr.  Madison,  and  Mr.  Jefferson, 
are  as  eminently  entitled  as  any  others  to  occupy  that  position. 
Mr.  Jefferson,  especially,  is  often  quoted  by  those  holding  seats 
on  this  side  of  the  house.  Mr.  Jefferson,  it  is  said,  was  against 
slavery.  I  grant  that.  But  how  ?  Mr.  Jefferson  was  in  favor 
of  every  State  retaining  arid  exercising  jurisdiction  over  the  sub 
ject  for  itself.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  himself  opposed  to  the  passage 
of  that  restriction,  in  1820,  now  called  a  time-honored  compact. 
I  do  not  care  as  to  what  his  abstract  opinions  were.  I  believe  he 
was  for  providing  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  in  Vir 
ginia.  But  his  plan  was  for  the  people  of  Virginia  to  do  it  for 
themselves,  without  any  interference  from  abroad  or  influence 
from  this  government — I  mean  after  the  present  constitution  was 
formed  and  adopted.  I  have  Mr.  Jefferson's  sentiments  here  be 
fore  me  on  this  particular  Missouri  restriction  when  it  was  passed 
It  is  immaterial  what  his  opinions  of  slavery  were.  What  did  he 
think  of  that  measure  ?  The  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  is  often  appealed  to  as  authority  by  the  gentleman's 
party.  Sir,  if  the  departed  Jefferson  could  return  from  the  realms 
above — if  the  seals  of  the  tomb  at  Monticello  could  be  broken, 
and  that  spirit  could  be  permitted  to  revisit  the  earth,  believe  you 
that  he  would  speak  a  different  sentiment  to-day  from  that  he 
uttered  then  ? 

Here  is  the  letter  which  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote.  It  is  too  long 
to  read  the  whole  ;  but  in  this  letter  to  Mr.  Holmes,  of  Maine, 
dated  the  29th  of  April,  1820,  after  strongly  condemning  the  es 
tablishment  of  a  geographical  line,  and  the  attempt  to  restrain 
the  "  diffusion  of  slavery  over  a  greater  surface,"  he  says: 

"An  abstinence,  too,  from  this  act  of  power  would  remove  the  jealousy 
excited  by  the  undertaking  of  Congress  to  regulate  the  condition  of  the 
different  descriptions  of  men  composing  a  State.  This,  certainly,  is  the 


SPEECH   ON  THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT  KANSAS.  547 

exclusive  right  of  every  State,  which  nothing  in  the  constitution  has  taken 
from  them  arid  given  to  the  general  government.  Could  Congress,  for 
example,  say  that  the  now  freemen  of  Connecticut  should  be  freemen, 
and  that  they  shall  not  emigrate  into  any  other  State  ?" 

This  is  plain  and  explicit  on  the  very  question. 
Again,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison  on  the  same  subject,  he 
says; 

"I  am  indebted  to  you  for  your  two  letters  of  February  7  and  19. 
This  Missouri  question,  by  a  geographical  line  of  division,  is  the  most 
portentous  one  I  have  ever  contemplated  *  *  *  *  is  ready  to  risk  the 
Union  for  any  chance  of  restoring  his  party  to  power,  and  wriggling  him 
self  to  the  head  of  it." 

The  allusion  here  is  evidently  to  Rufus  King,  who  was  the  first 
mover  of  the  restriction.  Such,  sir,  were  the  sentiments  of  him 
who  was  not  only  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
but  the  author  of  the  ordinance  of  1T8T  under  the  old  confedera 
tion.  This  is  what  he  said  of  the  restriction  of  1820,  under  our 
present  constitution. 

Here  is  also  Mr.  Madison's  emphatic  opinion  against  the  same 
measure.  I  cannot  take  up  my  time  in  reading  it.  I  state  the 
fact,  and  challenge  contradiction.  Jefferson  was  against  the  re 
striction  of  1820;  Madison  was  against  it;  and  Jackson  was 
against  it.  No  man  can  deny  these  facts.  It  was  reluctantly 
accepted  by  the  South,  however,  as  an  alternative,  and  only  as  an 
alternative,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony.  And  who  are 
those  now  who  call  it  a  sacred  compact  ?  Those  very  men,  the 
gentleman  and  his  party,  who  denounced  every  man  from  the 
North  as  "  a  doughface,"  who,  from  1846  to  1850  was  in  favor  of 
abiding  by  it  for  the  sake  of  union  and  harmony.  Not  a  man 
can  be  named  from  the  North  who  was  willing  to  abide  by  that 
line  of  division  during  the  period  I  have  stated  who  was  not  de 
nounced  by  the  gentleman  and  his  party  as  "  a  doughface."  Who 
now  are  the  "  doughfaces  ?"  And  if  the  gentleman  wishes  to  know 
what  tree  brought  forth  that  bitter  fruit  of  which  he  spoke  the 
other  day,  I  will  tell  him.  It  was  not  the  Kansas  tree,  but  that 
old  political  upas  planted  by  Rufus  King  in  1820.  It  grew  up, 
it  nourished,  and  it  sent  its  poisonous  exhalations  throughout  this 
country  till  it  came  well  nigh  extinguishing  the  life  of  the  repub 
lic  in  1850. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That  tree  was  planted  when— [Cries  of  "Or 
der  !"  ''Order!"] — when  slavery  was  first  brought  to  the  shores 
of  America.  [Cries  of  "  Order  !"  "  Order  !"] 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  much  older  than 
the  Kansas  bill.  It  was  planted  before  the  government  was 
formed.  The  constitution  itself  was  grafted  upon  its  stock. 
The  condition  or  slavery  of  the  African  race,  as  it  exists  amongst 
us,  is  a  "  fixed  fact"  in  the  constitution.  From  this  a  tree  has 
indeed  sprung — bearing,  however,  no  troubles  or  bitter  fruits. 
It  is  the  tree  of  national  liberty,  which,  by  the  culture  of  states- 


548  SPEECH    ON    THE   BILL   TO    ADMIT   KANSAS. 

men  and  patriots,  has  grown  up  and  flourished,  and  is  now  send 
ing  its  branches  far  and  wide,  laden  with  no  fruit  but  national 
happiness,  prosperity,  glory,  and  renown. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  read  the 
preamble  to  the  constitution  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes ;  and  I  believe  I  can  repeat  it  to  him.  It 
is  "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  in 
sure  domestic  tranquillity." 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  "And  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  our 
selves  and  our  posterity." 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  sir,  to  themselves  and  their  posterity — not 
to  the  negroes  and  Africans.  And  what  sort  of  liberty  ?  Con 
stitutional  liberty ;  that  liberty  which  recognized  the  inferior 
condition  of  the  African  race  amongst  them ;  the  liberty  which 
we  now  enjoy ;  the  liberty  which  all  the  States  enjoyed  at  that 
time,  save  one  (for  all  were  then  slaveholding  except  Massachu 
setts).  That  is  the  sort  of  liberty.  None  of  your  Socialism 
liberty.  None  of  your  Fourierism  liberty.  Constitutional  lib 
erty.  "  Law  and  order"  abiding  liberty.  That  in  the  liberty 
which  they  meant  to  perpetuate. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  return  from  this  digression — I  was  on 
the  subject  of  the  Kansas  laws — I  had  a  good  deal  to  sa}r  on  that 
point  I  must  now  omit ;  for  I  have  a  good  deal  I  wish  also  to  say 
on  the  measure  immediately  before  us,  and  the  amendment  which 
I  have  submitted,  and  my  time  is  rapidly  passing  away.  I  shall 
proceed,  then,  to  the  bill  and  the  amendment. 

The  bill  under  consideration  proposes  to  admit  Kansas  as  a 
State  at  once  under  the  Topeka  constitution.  I  am  opposed  to 
it ;  because  that  constitution  was  formed  without  any  authority 
of  law,  either  from  the  territorial  authorities  or  from  Congress. 
It  was  formed  in  open  opposition  to  law ;  it  was  formed  by  men 
in  open  rebellion,  with  arms  in  their  hands,  against  the  only 
Iegall3r-constituted  government  in  the  territory.  The  leaders 
most  conspicuous  in  getting  it  up  are  now  under  arrest  for 
treason.  Whether  they  are  guilty  or  not,  I  will  not  even  express 
an  opinion.  That  is  a  question  for  the  courts — the  Federal 
courts — not  the  courts  created  by  the  territorial  legislature,  but 
the  United  States  courts,  with  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States — to  determine.  I  do  not  wish  in  any  way  to 
interfere  with  that  judicial  question.  Let  these  gentlemen  stand 
or  fall  according  to  their  guilt  or  innocence,  as  it  may  be  made  to 
appear  before  the  proper  tribunals,  at  the  proper  time.  Let  us 
not,  in  the  meantime,  prejudge  the  case  either  for  or  against  them. 
The  man  who  claims  to  be  governor  under  this  Topeka  constitu 
tion  is  now  in  custody  awaiting  his  trial  for  the  highest  offence 
known  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  opposed  to  this  bill,  because  we  have  no  evidence  that  a 
majority,  or  any  thing  like  a  majority,  of  the  people  of  Kansas  are 
in  favor  of  this  pretended  Topeka  constitution.  It  is  an  ex  parte 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL    TO    ADMIT   KANSAS.  549 

proceeding  from  beginning  to  end.  It  was  got  up  by  a  party. 
It  was  contrived  by  Governor  Reeder ;  and  though  he  and  his 
associates  now  place  the  whole  grounds  of  their  justification  upon 
the  plea  that  the  territorial  legislature  was  composed  of  usurpers 
— that  the  election  was  carried  by  an  invasion  of  non-residents, 
who  passed  laws  that  they  cannot  submit  to,  yet  it  must  be 
recollected  by  all  fair-minded  men  that  this  legislature,  however 
elected,  was  organized  under  the  auspices  of  Governor  Reeder 
himself.  He  was  the  judge  of  the  election  returns  of  its  members 
in  the  first  instance,  and  he  duly  commissioned  a  large  majority 
of  both  branches  of  it,  and  gave  his  own  official  certificate  that 
they  were  duly  elected.  If  what  is  now  asserted  by  him  and 
others  be  true,  why  did  he  not  at  the  proper  time  arrest  it  ?  Why 
now  lay  a  complaint  at  the  door  of  the  President  for  not  prevent 
ing  an  invasion  of  Kansas,  or  setting  aside  the  legislative  election, 
while  he,  as  governor,  made  no  complaint  to  the  President  ?  He 
was  the  sentinel  placed  upon  the  watch-tower  in  Kansas.  The 
only  cry  heard  from  him  by  the  President  or  the  country,  during 
this  now-pretended  invasion,  and  for  several  long  months  after 
ward,  was,  "All's  well!"  He  recognized  this  legislature  after  it 
was  organized,  and  after  he  knew  full  well  how  it  was  elected.  I 
must  therefore  receive  with  many  grains  of  allowance  what  he  now 
asserts,  all  tending  toward  nothing  more  strongly  than  the  im 
peachment  of  his  own  official  integrity.  His  position  is  not  such 
as  to  warrant  me,  as  a  fair  man,  now  to  back  him  in  his  present 
revolutionary  movement.  I  see  no  sufficient  grievance  even 
alleged  to  justify  me  in  doing  it. 

Grant  that  some  of  the  laws  passed  by  the  legislature,  that 
Reeder  certified  to  as  having  been  duly  elected,  were  bad  laws — 
not  a  single  case  of  oppression,  growing  out  of  any  one  of  these 
laws,  has  arisen.  I  was  on  this  point  when  interrupted  by  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  CAMPBELL.]  How  does  it  appear  but 
that  the  courts  would  pronounce  these  laws  unconstitutional,  as 
some  on  this  floor  maintain  that  they  are  ?  Why  resort  to  revolu 
tion  until  the  courts  fail  ?  Nay,  more :  if  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  Kansas  are  opposed  to  these  laws,  as  is  so  boldly  asserted  on 
this  floor,  why  can  they  not  have  them  repealed  by  the  next 
legislature,  soon  to  be  elected,  even  if  the  courts  should  sustain 
them  ?  The  next  legislature  is  to  be  chosen  in  October.  Why  not 
settle  that  question  at  the  ballot-box  ?  Is  not  that  a  fair  and  just 
way  of  settling  such  questions  ?  Is  it  not  the  way  we  have  to  do 
in  all  our  States  ?  Are  those  who  press  this  ex  parte  constitution 
upon  us  afraid  of  the  ballot-box  ?  Whatever  else  may  be  said  of 
the  acts  of  the  Kansas  legislature,  they  certainly  secured  the 
purity  of  the  fountain  of  political  power.  Here  is  a  part  of  their 
election  law : 

"  SEC.  24.  If  any  person,  by  menaces,  threats,  and  force,  or  by  any  other 
unlawful  means,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  attempt  to  influence  any 
qualified  voter  in  giving  his  vote,  or  to  deter  him  from  giving  the  same,  or 


550  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

disturb  or  hinder  him  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  right  of  suffrage,  at  any 
election  held  under  the  laws  of  this  territory,  the  person  so  offending  shall, 
on  conviction  thereof,  be  adjudged  guilty  of  misdemeanor,  and  be  punished 
by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  not  exceeding  one  year. 

"  SEC.  25.  Every  person  who  shall,  at  the  same  election,  vote  more  than 
once,  either  at  the  same  or  a  different  place,  shall,  on  conviction,  be  ad 
judged  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  be  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding 
fifty  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  three 
months. 

"  SEC.  26.  Every  person  not  being  a  qualified  voter  according  to  the 
organic  law  and  the  laws  of  this  territory,  who  shall  vote  at  any  election 
within  this  territory,  knowing  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  vote,  shall  be  ad 
judged  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  fifty 
dollars. 

"  SEC.  27.  Any  person  who  designedly  gives  a  printed  or  written  ticket 
to  any  qualified  voter  of  this  territory,  containing  the  written  or  printed 
names  of  persons  for  whom  said  voter  does  not  design  to  vote,  for  the 
purpose  of  causing  such  voter  to  poll  his  vote  contrary  to  his  own  wishes, 
shall,  on  conviction,  be  adjudged  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punished 
by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  not  exceeding  three  months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment. 

"  SEC.  28.  Any  person  who  shall  cause  to  be  printed  and  circulated,  or 
who  shall  circulate,  any  false  and  fraudulent  tickets,  whith  upon  their 
face  appear  to  be  designed  as  a  fraud  upon  voters,  shall,  upon  conviction, 
be  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprison 
ment  in  the  county  jail,  not  exceeding  three  months,  or  by  both  such 
fine  and  imprisonment. 

"  This  act  to  take  effect  and  be  in  force  from  arid  after  its  passage." — 
Chap.  52,  p.  281. 

Does  any  free  man  want  a  better  security  for  his  sovereign 
right  of  suffrage  than  is  here  given  ?  Does  this  look  like  the  work 
of  "  border  ruffians,"  who  were  looking  to  carry  elections  by  fraud 
or  violence  ?  But  it  is  said  that  in  the  same  law  it  is  provided  that 
no  man  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  who  has  been  guilty  of  a  violation 
of  the  fugitive  slave  law  passed  by  Congress  !  Well,  sir,  is  this 
an  onerous  restriction  ?  Ought  men  who  set  themselves  up  in  open 
violation  of  the  laws  of  our  country  to  complain  of  being  deprived 
of  the  right  of  having  a  voice  in  making  laws  ?  Are  not  certain 
offenses  in  all  our  States  grounds  of  denying  suffrage  ?  But  the 
great  question  is,  cannot  this  provision  of  the  election  law  be  re 
pealed  by  the  next  legislature  if  a  majority  of  the  honest  people 
there  are  against  it  ?  The  case  then  presented  by  the  governor 
and  his  associates  in  the  Topeka  movement  is  not  such  as  to 
justify,  in  my  judgment,  this  revolution  which  they  have  set  on 
foot,  and  now  ask  Congress  to  approve  and  sanction.  Besides 
this,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  evidence  is  very  strong  to  my  mind,  if  not 
conclusive,  that  this  Topeka  constitution  does  not  meet  the  ap 
proval  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  When  it  was 
submitted  to  popular  vote,  only  about  seventeen  hundred  in  the 
whole  territory  approved  it.  Now,  sir,  I  am  for  no  such  judg- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT  KANSAS.  551 

ment  either  way — I  am  for  fair  dealing  in  this  matter  on  both 
sides. 

I  wish  for  nothing  but  a  fair  expression  of  the  will  of  the  bona 
fide  residents  of  Kansas  upon  this  subject.  When  1  voted  for 
the  Kansas  bill,  I  did  so,  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  a  slave 
State,  unless  a  majority  of  the  white  freemen  there  desired  it ;  and 
if  they  did  desire  it,  I  was  for  permitting  them  to  exercise  the 
same  power  over  the  subject  that  the  freemen  of  the  other  States 
of  the  Union  exercise  over  the  same  subjects  within  their  respec 
tive  limits.  I  never  regarded  the  success  of  that  measure  as  a 
triumph  of  the  South  over  the  North,  further  than  it  was  a  tri 
umph  of  this  great  constitutional  principle  of  equality  over  that 
sectionalism  of  a  party  at  the  North,  which  denied  it.  Whether 
Kansas  or  Nebraska  would  be  slave  States  or  free  States,  I  did 
not  know.  I  left  that  to  time,  climate,  soil,  and  the  people,  to 
settle.  And  now,  sir,  though  upon  general  principles  I  am  opposed 
to  the  admission  of  any  State  into  the  Union  without  population 
sufficient  to  entitle  them  to  a  member  on  this  floor,  according  to 
the  ratio  of  representation,  yet,  in  the  present  case,  if  gentlemen 
are  so  anxious  to  press  the  admission  of  Kansas,  I  am  willing  to 
forego  the  usual  inquiry  into  the  exact  amount  of  population  there. 
I  will  waive  that  point.  I  do  not  know  the  number  of  people 
there.  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  vary  in  their  estimates  from 
sixty  thousand  to  ninety  thousand.  I  think  it  would  be  best  first 
to  ascertain  the  facts.  Still  I  will,  I  say,  waive  that  point ;  and 
if  gentlemen  are  so  anxious  for  the  admission  of  the  people  of 
that  territory,  whatever  may  be  their  numbers,  as  a  State,  I  meet 
them,  and  offer  the  substitute  to  this  bill  which  I  have  submitted. 
Mine  is  an  alternative  proposition.  If  Kansas  is  to  be  admitted, 
let  it  be  done  in  a  fair,  just,  and  proper  way,  and  not  at  the  in 
stance  of  any  irregular,  illegal,  and  revolutionary  convention  of 
only  a  portion,  and  a  very  small  portion  at  that,  of  the  people  of 
the  territory.  The  plan  I  submit  is  the  same  offered  by  my  col 
league  [Mr.  TOOMBS]  in  the  Senate.  I  suppose  gentlemen  have 
read  it.  I  cannot  now  read  it.  Its  main  features  are  to  provide 
for  the  admission  of  Kansas,  under  such  constitution  as  her  people 
may  form,  at  as  early  a  day  as  is  practicable. 

It  provides,  first,  for  the  taking  of  a  census.  This  is  to  be 
done  by  five  commissioners,  to  be  appointed  by  the  President, 
and  ratified  by  the  Senate. 

It  provides,  secondly,  for  an  election  to  be  held  in  the  terri 
tory  on  the  first  Tuesdaj^  after  the  first  Monday  in  November 
next,  (the  day  of  the  Presidential  election  in  the  States,)  for  dele 
gates  to  a  convention  to  form  a  State  constitution. 

Representation  in  this  convention  is  to  be  according  to  the 
number  of  voters  in  the  several  counties  and  districts,  as  shall 
appear  from  the  census,  which  is,  amongst  other  things,  to  ex 
hibit  the  names  of  all  the  actual  residents  of  the  territory  at  the 
date  of  the  passage  of  the  bill. 


552  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

These  commissioners  are  to  appoint  the  officers  to  conduct  the 
election.  Returns  are  to  be  made  to  them,  and  they  are  to  judge 
and  determine  all  questions  relating  to  the  election,  and  to  give 
certificates  of  the  same. 

Three  months'  residence  in  the  county  is  required  to  entitle 
any  one  to  vote. 

And  to  guard  the  purity  and  sanctity  of  the  ballot-box,  so  that 
the  untrammeled  voice  of  the  people  may  be  heard,  let  it  be  as  it 
may,  these  stringent  provisions  are  inserted  : 

SEC.  10.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  every  white  male  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  (including  Indians  of  like  description  qualified  by  existing 
laws  to  vote,)  over  twenty-one  years  old,  who  may  be  a  bonafide  inhabi 
tant  of.  said  territory  at  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  who  shall  have  resided 
three  months  next  before  said  election  in  the  county  in  which  he  offers  to 
vote,  and  no  other  persons  whatever,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  said  elec 
tion  ;  and  all  persons  qualified  as  voters  may  be  elected  delegates  to  said 
convention,  and  no  others. 

SEC.  11.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  person,  by  menaces, 
threats,  or  force,  or  by  any  other  unlawful  means,  shall  directly  or  indi 
rectly  attempt  to  influence  any  qualified  voter  in  giving  his  vote,  or  deter 
him  from  giving  the  same,  or  disturb  or  hinder  him  in  the  free  exercise  of 
his  right  of  suffrage,  at  the  election  provided  for  by  this  act,  the  person  so 
offending  shall  be  adjudged  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  be  punished  by 
fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceed 
ing  one  year,  or  by  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

SEC.  12.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  not  being  a  quali 
fied  voter,  according  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  who  shall  vote  at  the 
election  herein  provided  for,  knowing  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  vote,  and 
any  person  who  shall,  at  the  same  election,  vote  more  than  once,  whether 
at  the  same  or  at  different  places,  shall  be  adjudged  guilty  of  a  misde 
meanor,  and  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars, 
or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six  months,  or  both,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  court. 

SEC.  13.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  whatsoever,  who 
may  be  charged  with  the  holding  of  the  election  herein  authorized  to  be 
held,  who  shall  wilfully  and  knowingly  commit  any  fraud  or  irregularity 
whatever,  with  the  intent  to  hinder  or  prevent,  or  defeat  a  fair  expression 
of  the  popular  will  in  said  election,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and 
punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  and  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  two  years,  or  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

But,  sir,  my  time  will  not  allow  me  to  go  more  into  details. 
The  object  of  the  bill,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  to  pro 
vide  for  as  fair  an  expression  of  the  popular  will  of  the  territory 
as  human  ingenuity  can  devise.  By  the  expression  of  that  will, 
when  thus  made,  I  shall  abide,  let  it  be  which  way  it  may.  For 
your  bill  as  it  stands,  I  can  never  vote.  Against  the  substitute 
I  offer,  who  can  raise  any  objection  that  is  in  favor  of  disposing 
of  this  question  upon  principles  of  fairness,  of  justice,  of  law, 
of  order,  and  of  the  constitution  ?  I  present  the  distinct  issue 
between  these  two  measures  to  the  House  and  the  country. 

I  am  constrained,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  believe  that  all  this  clamor 
we  hear  about  "free  Kansas,"  and  "down-trodden  Kansas,"  and 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS.  553 

"bleeding  Kansas,"  arises  much  more  from  a  desire  and  hope  of 
exciting  by  it  sectional  hate  and  the  alienation  of  one  portion 
of  the  Union  from  the  other,  than  from  any  wish  to  have  even 
"  free  Kansas"  admitted  into  the  Union,  or  from  any  conviction 
that  a  majority  of  tlie  people  there  are  in  favor  of  this  Topeka 
constitution.  The  object,  I  am  constrained  to  believe,  is  not  so 
much  to  get  another  State  added  to  the  Union,  as  it  is  to  use 
the  question  to  produce  a  severance  of  those  States  now  united. 
Why  these  violent  denunciations  against  one  whole  section  of  the 
confederacy  ?  Why  is  such  unbridled  vituperation  indulged  in 
toward  southern  men  and  southern  institutions  ?  Why  these 
shouts  of  joy  in  New  York  on  the  announcement  that  "  civil 
war"  was  raging  in  Kansas  ?  What  other  construction  can  be 
put  upon  the  movement  of  a  late  sectional  convention  held  in 
Philadelphia  to  nominate  party  candidates  for  President  and 
Yice-President  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  all  these  appeals  to  the 
passions  and  prejudices  of  the  people  of  the  northern  States, 
exciting  them  to  rise  up  against  their  southern  brethren  ?  Is  it 
not  part  and  parcel  of  that  same  spirit  which  proclaimed  that  it 
were  better  that  the  Capitol  should  blaze  by  the  torch  of  an 
incendiary,  and  wild  disorder  ensue,  than  that  the  free  people  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  should  regulate  their  own  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way?  That  is  all  that  the  advocates  of  the 
Kansas  bill  asked ;  that  is  all  it  was  designed  to  effect ;  and  that 
is  all  I  this  day  ask  this  House  to  join  me  in  carrying  out  in 
good  faith  to  the  letter  and  spirit. 

To  show  the  House  and  the  country  some  of  the  grounds  for 
my  belief,  touching  the  ulterior  objects  of  some  of  those  who  are 
joining  in  this  "  Kansas  cry"  at  the  North,  I  ask  attention  to  an 
editorial  of  the  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer  of  the  26th  inst. 
In  this,  that  editor  says : 

"  We  are  in  the  midst  of  a  revolution,  the  origin  of  which  is  sectional, 
and  its  avowed  object  to  gratify  the  grasping  ambition  of  the  slave  power ; 
and  a  civil  war  waged  in  beRalf  of  freedom  and  in  resistance  of  slavery 
extension  is  a  fitting  accompaniment  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
South  and  their  co-laborers  of  the  North,  to  trample  on  the  principles 
and  guarantees  of  the  constitution,  by  the  extension  of  slavery  into  free 
territory  through  the  direct  legislation  of  the  general  government." 

Here  it  is  announced  that  we  are  in  the  "  midst  of  a  revolu 
tion,  the  origin  of  which  is  sectional."  But  most  strange  to  say, 
the  cause  of  it  is  charged  upon  the  South ;  and  stranger  still, 
that  cause  is  asserted  to  be  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  South 
to  "  trample  on  the  principles  and  guarantees  of  the  constitution, 
by  the  extension  of  slavery  into  free  territory  through  the  direct 
legislation  of  the  general  government."  Was  ever  accusation 
more  groundless  and  utterly  unfounded,  than  this  against  the 
South?  The  South  never  asked  Congress,  by  legislation,  to 
extend  slavery ;  nor  has  it  ever  been  done  by  any  such  legisla 
tion.  All  that  the  South  ever  asked,  or  now  asks,  is  to  leave 


554:  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

the   question  to  be   settled   by  those  who  are  to  be   affected 
by  it. 

General  Jaroes  Watson  Webb,  the  editor  of  this  paper,  (the 
Courier  and  Enquirer,)  was  a  delegate  to  the  late  Philadelphia 
convention,  the  object  of  which  was  to  embody  this  sectional 
movement  of  the  North  against  the  South.  In  that  convention 
he  made  a  speech.  Prom  that  speech,  as  reported  in  the  New 
York  Times,  we  are  not  left  to  inference  as  to  what  is  the  design 
and  intention  of  the  leading  spirits  controlling  it.  In. speaking 
of  the  people  the  convention  represented,  he  says : 

"  They  ask  us  to  give  them  a  nomination  which,  when  put  fairly  before 
the  people,  will  unite  public  sentiment,  and,  through  the  ballot-box,  will 
restrain  and  repel  this  pro-slavery  extension,  and  this  aggression  of  the 
slavocracy.  What  else  are  they  doing?  They  tell  you  that  they  are 
willing  to  abide  by  the  ballot-box,  and  willing  to  make  that  the  last  appeal. 
If  we  fail  there,  what  then?  We  will  drive  it  back,  sword  in  hand,  and 
so  help  me  God!  believing  that  to  be  right,  I  am  with  them.  [Loud 
cheers,  and  cries  of  '  Good !']" 

This  was  in  no  common  town  or  city  meeting.  But  it  was  in 
that  great  northern  sectional  convention  lately  assembled  at 
Philadelphia,  that  these  sentiments  received  such  bursts  of 
applause.  There  is,  I  say,  no  mistaking  the  object  of  the  lead 
ers  of  this  movement.  They  evidently  intend  to  use  this  Kansas 
question  to  make  as  much  political  capital  out  of  it  as  they  can 
to  aid  them  in  carrying  the  election,  by  which  means  they  hope 
to  get  power  to  "  crush  out"  the  South,  as  they  suppose ;  but,  if 
they  fail  in  the  election,  then  they  are,  sword  in  hand,  to  join 
the  revolutionists  in  Kansas. 

In  the  first  editorial  I  read  from,  in  this  mammoth  sheet,  (the 
Courier  and  Enquirer,)  issued  the  26th  instant,  and  written, 
doubtless,  by  General  Webb  himself,  who  seems  to  be  the  Mag 
nus  Apollo  of  the  black  republican  hosts,  are  these  significant,  as 
well  as  studied,  words  : 

"  The  remedy  is  to  go  to  the  polls,  and  through  the  ballot-box  repu 
diate  the  infamous  platform  put  forth  at  Cincinnati,  and  over  which  the 
black  flag  of  slavery  waves  with  characteristic  impudence ;  and  failing  in 
this,  do  as  our  fathers  did  before  us — stand  by  our  inalienable  rights,  and 
drive  back  with  arms  those  who  dare  to  trample  upon  our  inheritance. 
There  is  no  boasting  and  no  threat  in  this.  It  is  the  calm  language  of 
honest,  conscientious,  and  determined  freemen,  wafted  to  us  by  every 
breeze  from  the  West ;  and  they  are  already  acting  in  strict  conformity 
with  their  avowed  determination." 

Now,  sir,  I  care  as  little  for  these  belligerent  manifestoes  of  this 
redoubtable  general  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer,  as  I  did  two 
years  ago  for  the  "blazing"  and  "incendiary"  bulletins  of  his  co- 
temporary  of  the  Tribune.  I  refer  to  them  only  to  show  the  pur 
poses  at  work ;  and  I  put  the  question  directly  to  this  House  :  Are 
you  going  to  allow  this  subject  to  be  used  for  any  such  purposes  ? 
If  you  want  Kansas  admitted  as  a  State,  do  I  not  offer  3^011  a  fair, 
liberal,  and  just  proposition  for  accomplishing  that  object?  Do 


SPEECH   ON   THE  BILL   TO  ADMIT  KANSAS.  555 

you  wish  to  go  before  the  country  with  the  question,  to  inflame 
the  public  mind  at  the  North,  to  move  their  passions,  to  stir  up 
their  blood,  and  prepare  their  hearts  for  a  war  of  extermination 
against  their  southern  brethren  ? — "  to  drive  them  back,  sword  in 
hand,  in  case  you  fail  in  the  election  ?"  If  so,  then  be  it  so.  But 
be  it  known  to  you,  that  you  will  have  to  take  the  question  with 
the  issue  this  day  joined.  Between  you  and  me — between  these 
two  propositions,  I  am  willing  that  the  people  North,  as  well  as 
the  South,  may  judge.  Nothing  would  afford  me  more  pleasure 
than  to  argue  the  question  with  you  before  any  intelligent  con 
stituency  in  the  republic. 

Patriotism,  as  I  have  heretofore  found  it,  is  the  same  every 
where.  Nor  has  it  in  days  past  been  confined  to  any  locality 
in  this  broad  land.  It  is,  I  believe,  indigenous  wherever  the  na 
tional  flag  floats.  In  the  forests  and  ship-yards  and  market  towns 
of  Maine  it  is  to  be  found ;  in  the  factories,  workshops,  and  com 
mercial  houses  of  the  old  Bay  State  it  is  to  be  found.  In  State 
street  and  Fane  nil  Hall  its  voice  has  often  been  heard.  So  on 
the  White  Mountains  of  New  Hampshire  and  the  Green  Mount 
ains  of  Vermont ;  on  the  hills  and  valleys  of  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey.  It  is  a  plant 
that  heretofore  has  grown  with  as  much  vigor  on  the  most  sterile 
soil  of  the  East  as  it  has  upon  the  fairest  plains  of  the  South  or 
the  richest  prairies  of  the  West.  I  cannot  believe  that  a  change 
of  political  climate  has  rendered  it  an  exotic  in  any  part  of  this 
country  yet.  Upon  nothing,  however,  should  I  rely  in  present 
ing  this  issue  everywhere,  but  upon  the  reason,  justice,  intelli 
gence,  virtue,  integrity,  and  patriotism  of  the  people  ;  upon  these 
all  our  republican  institutions  must  rest ;  when  they  fail  all  that 
we  hold  dear  must  go  with  them.  And  if  the  North  shall  decide 
to  follow  General  Webb,  let  the  responsibility  rest  upon  him  and 
them. 

I  cannot  believe  that  the  great  body  of  honest  business  people 
of  the  North  are  prepared  to  join  a  set  of  reckless  leaders  in  this 
crusade  against  the  South,  or  will  lend  their  influence  and  aid  in 
kindling  a  civil  war  in  Kansas  which  may  extend  until  it  involves 
the  whole  country.  This  I  cannot  believe,  and  will  not  believe, 
for  the  present  at  least.  It  is  for  them  to  determine  whether 
they  will  or  not.  That  question  they  will  have  to  meet,  not  only 
on  this  issue,  if  the  majority  of  this  House  so  determine,  but 
upon  that  other,  and  at  this  time  more  absorbing,  issue  of  the 
Cincinnati  platform.  That  platform  bears  no  black  flag  as  this 
"  sword -in-hand"  general  asserts.  Black  flags  belong  to  those 
who  think  more  of  black  men  than  they  do  of  the  white  man,  and 
who  exhibit  more  sympathy  for  the  well-provided  African  race 
than  they  do  for  the  suffering  and  oppressed  poor  of  their  own. 

The  flag  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  on  this  subject  bears  no 
principles  inscribed  upon  its  broad  folds  but  those  of  the  consti 
tution.  The  friends  of  the  Union  under  the  constitution  must 


556  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

and  will  approve  them  everywhere ;  while  none  but  the  enemies 
of  one  or  the  other  of  these,  or  both,  can  denounce  them.  Upon 
this  great  sectional  question  all  national  men,  I  care  not  of  what 
party — all  true-hearted  patriots,  who  look  from  the  bright  his 
tory  of  the  past  with  hopes  to  a  brighter  future  before  us,  must 
and  will  give  those  principles,  announced  at  Cincinnati,  their 
sanction  and  approval.  The  issue  on  this  subject  presented  at 
Cincinnati  is  nationalism  against  sectionalism — the  issue  pre 
sented  at  Philadelphia  is  sectionalism  against  nationalism. 

Are  we,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  remain  a  united  people  ?  Are  we  to 
go  on  in  that  high  career  of  achievement  in  science,  in  art,  and  in 
civilization,  which  we  have  so  conspicuously  entered  upon  ?  Or 
are  we  to  be  arrested  in  our  upward  course  long  before  reaching 
the  half-way  point  toward  ultimate  culmination  ?  Are  our  deeds 
of  glory  all  numbered  ?  Are  the  memories  of  the  past  to  be  for 
gotten,  and  the  benefits  and  blessings  of  the  present  to  be  derided 
and  rejected  ?  Is  the  radiant  orb  of  day  brightening  the  morn 
ing  of  our  existence  to  be  darkened  and  obscured,  and  with  it 
the  light  of  the  world  extinguished  forever?  And  all  this  be 
cause  Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  has  thought  proper  to  permit  the 
free  white  men  of  Kansas  to  determine  for  themselves  whether 
the  negro  in  that  territory  shall  be  the  same  nondescript  outcast, 
neither  citizen  nor  slave,  amongst  them,  that  he  is  in  sixteen 
States  of  the  Union,  or  whether  he  shall  occupy  the  same  condi 
tion  there  in  relation  to  them  which  a  Christian  philanthropy 
has  assigned  him  in  the  other  fifteen  States.  I  say  Christian 
philanthropy,  notwithstanding  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Indiana,  [Mr.  DUNN,]  and  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr. 
GIDDINGS,]  the  other  day,  denouncing  slavery  as  a  violation  of 
the  laws  of  nature  and  of  God !  To  those  remarks,  though  my 
time  is  short,  I  wish  very  briefly  to  reply  before  I  close. 

Even,  however,  if  slaveiy  be  sinful,  as  they  affirm,  or  their  lan 
guage  implies,  permit  me  here  to  ask,  is  not  the  sin  the  same  whether 
the  slave  be  held  in  Georgia,  Carolina,  or  in  Kansas  ?  Is  it  any 
more  sinful  in  one  place  than  another  ?  But  are  these  gentle 
men  correct  ?  Is  African  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  the  South, 
either  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  the  laws  of  nations,  or 
the  laws  of  God  ?  I  maintain  that  it  is  not.  It  has  been  recog 
nized  by  the  laws  of  nations  from  time  immemorial.  The  high 
est  court  in  this  country,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  has  so  decided  the  laws  of  nations  to  be.  And  where  do 
we  get  the  laws  of  nature  but  in  nature's  works  about  us  ? 
Those  general  rules  and  principles  by  which  all  things  in  nature, 
according  to  their  kinds  respectively,  seem  to  be  regulated,  and 
to  which  they  seem  to  conform,  we  call  laws;  and  in  the  handi 
work  of  creation  nothing  is  more  striking  to  the  philosophic 
observer  than  that  order  is  nature's  first  great  law. 

Gradation,  too,  is  stamped  upon  every  thing  animate  as  well 
as  inanimate — if,  indeed,  there  be  any  thing  inanimate.  A  scale, 


SPEECH    ON   THE   BILL   TO    ADMIT    KANSAS.  557 

from  the  lowest  degree  of  inferiority  to  the  highest  degree  of 
superiority,  runs  through  all  animal  life.  We  see  it  in  the  insect 
tribes — we  see  it  in  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  the  fowls  of  the  air,  in 
the  beasts  of  the  earth,  and  we  see  it  in  the  races  of  men.  We 
see  the  same  principle  pervading  the  heavenly  bodies  above  us. 
One  star  differs  from  another  star  in  magnitude  and  lustre — 
some  are  larger,  others  are  smaller — but  the  greater  and  superior 
uniformly  influences  and  controls  the  lesser  and  inferior  within 
its  sphere.  If  there  is  any  fixed  principle  or  law  of  nature  it  is 
this.  In  the  races  of  men  we  find  like  differences  in  capacity  and 
development.  The  negro  is  inferior  to  the  white  man  ;  nature 
has  made  him  so ;  observation  and  history,  from  the  remotest 
times,  establish  the  fact ;  and  all  attempts  to  make  the  inferior 
equal  to  the  superior  is  but  an  effort  to  reverse  the  decrees  of  the 
Creator,  who  has  made  all  things  as  we  find  them,  according  to 
the  counsels  of  his  own  will.  The  Ethiopian  can  no  more  change 
his  nature  or  his  skin  than  the  leopard  his  spots.  Do  what  you 
will,  a  negro  is  a  negro,  and  he  will  remain  a  negro  still.  In  the 
social  and  political  system  of  the  South  the  negro  is  assigned  to 
that  subordinate  position  for  which  he  is  fitted  by  the  laws  of 
nature.  Our  system  of  civilization  is  founded  in  strict  con 
formity  to  these  laws.  Order  and  subordination,  according  to 
the  natural  fitness  of  things,  is  the  principle  upon  which  the 
whole  fabric  of  our  southern  institutions  rests. 

Then  as  to  the  law  of  God — that  law  we  read  not  only  in  .his 
works  about  us,  around  us,  and  over  us,  but  in  that  inspired  Book 
wherein  he  has  revealed  his  will  to  man.  When  we  differ  as  to 
the  voice  of  nature,  or  the  language  of  God,  as  spoken  in  nature's 
works,  we  go  to  that  great  Book,  the  Book  of  books,  which  is  the 
fountain  of  all  truth.  To  that  Book  I  now  appeal.  God,  in  the 
days  of  old,  made  a  covenant  with  the  human  family — for  the  re 
demption  of  fallen  man  :  that  covenant  is  the  corner-stone  of  the 
whole  Christian  system.  Abram,  afterwards  called  Abraham, 
was  the  man  with  whom  that  covenant  was  made.  He  was  the 
great  first  head  of  an  organized  visible  church  here  below.  He 
believed  God,  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness. 
He  was  in  deed  and  in  truth  the  father  of  the  faithful.  Abraham, 
sir,  was  a  slaveholder.  Nay,  more,  he  was  required  to  have  the 
sign  of  that  covenant  administered  to  the  slaves  of  his  household. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.     Page,  bring  me  a  Bible. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  have  one  here  which  the  gentleman  can  con 
sult  if  he  wishes.  Here  is  the  passage,  Genesis  xvii.  13.  God 
said  to  Abraham : 

"  13.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money 
mast  needs  be  circumcised ;  and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for 
an  everlasting  covenant." 

Yes,  sir,  Abraham  was  not  only  a  slaveholder,  but  a  slave 
dealer  it  seems,  for  he  bought  men  with  his  money,  and  yet  it 


558  SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

was  with  him  the  covenant  was  made  by  which  the  world  was  to 
be  redeemed  from  the  dominion  of  sin.  And  it  was  into  his  bosom 
in  heaven  that  the  poor  man  who  died  at  the  rich  man's  gate  was 
borne  by  angels,  according  to  the  parable  of  the  Saviour.  In  the 
20th  chapter  of  Exodus,  the  great  moral  law  is  found — that  law 
that  defines  sin — the  ten  commandments,  written  by  the  finger  of 
God  himself  upon  tables  of  stone.  In  two  of  these  command 
ments,  the  4th  and  10th,  verses  10th  and  17th,  slavery  is  expressly 
recognized,  and  in  none  of  them  is  there  any  thing  against  it — 
this  is  the  moral  law.  In  Leviticus  we  have  the  civil  law  on  this 
subject,  as  given  by  God  to  Moses  for  the  government  of  his 
chosen  people  in  their  municipal  affairs.  In  chapter  xxv.,  verses 
44,  45,  and  46,  I  read  as  follows : 

"44.  Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt  have, 
shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you ;  of  them  ye  shall  buy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids. 

"  45.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among 
you,  of  them  ye  shall  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you  which 
they  begat  in  your  land  :  and  they  shall  be  your  possession. 

"  46.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after 
you,  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession  ;  they  shall  be  your  bondmen  for 
ever;  but  over  your  brethren,  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one 
over  another,  with  rigor." 

This  was  the  law  given  to  the  Jews  soon  after  they  left  Egypt, 
for  their  government  when  they  should  reach  the  land  of  promise. 
They  could  have  had  no  slaves  then.  It  authorized  the  introduction 
of  slavery  amongst  them  when  they  should  become  established  in 
Canaan.  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  their  bondmen  and  bond 
maids  to  be  bought,  and  held  for  a  possession  and  an  inheritance 
for  their  children  after  them,  were  to  be  of  the  heathen  round 
about  them.  Over  their  brethren  they  were  not  to  rule  with 
rigor.  Our  southern  system  is  in  strict  conformity  with  this  in 
junction.  Men  of  our  own  blood  and  our  own  race,  wherever 
born,  or  from  whatever  clime  they  come,  are  free  and  equal.  We 
have  no  castes  or  classes  amongst  white  men — no  "  upper  ten- 
dom"  or  "lower  tendom."  All  are  equals.  Our  slaves  were 
taken  from  the  heathen  tribes — the  barbarians  of  Africa.  In  our 
households  they  are  brought  within  the  pale  of  the  covenant, 
under  Christian  teaching  and  influence ;  and  more  of  them  are 
partakers  of  the  benefits  of  the  gospel  than  ever  were  rendered  so 
by  missionary  enterprise.  The  wisdom  of  man  is  foolishness — 
the  ways  of  Providence  are  mysterious.  Nor  does  the  negro  feel 
any  sense  of  degradation  in  his  condition — he  is  not  degraded. 
He  occupies  and  fills  the  same  grade  or  rank  in  society  and  the 
State  that  he  does  in  the  scale  of  being  ;  it  is  his  natural  place ; 
and  all  things  fit  when  nature's  great  first  law  of  order  is  con 
formed  to. 

Again  :  Job  was  certainly  one  of  the  best  men  of  whom  we  read 
in  the  Bible.     He  was  a  large  slaveholder.     So,  too,  were  Isaac 


SPEECH   ON   THE   BILL   TO   ADMIT  KANSAS.  559 

and  Jacob,  and  all  the  patriarchs.  But,  it  is  said,  this  was  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation.  Granted.  Has  any  change  been  made 
since  ?  Is  any  thing  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  against 
it  ?  Nothing — not  a  word.  Slavery  existed  when  the  gospel 
was  preached  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  where  they 
preached :  it  was  all  around  them.  And  though  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  were  denounced  by  our  Saviour  for  their  hypocrisy  and 
robbing  "  widows'  houses,"  yet  not  a  word  did  He  utter  against 
slaveholding.  On  one  occasion  He  was  sought  for  by  a  centu 
rion,  who  asked  him  to  heal  his  slave,  who  was  sick.  Jesus  said 
he  would  go  ;  but  the  centurion  objected,  saying  :  "  Lord,  I  am 
not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst  come  under  my  roof ;  but  speak 
the  word  only,  and  my  servant  shall  be  healed.  For  I  am  a  man 
under  authority,  having  soldiers  under  me ;  and  I  say  to  this 
man,  go,  and  he  goeth ;  and  to  another  come,  and  he  cometh ; 
and  to  my  slave,  do  this,  and  he  doeth  it."  Matthew  viii.  9. 
The  word  rendered  here  "  servant,"  in  our  translation,  means  slave. 
It  means  just  such  a  servant  as  all  our  slaves  at  the  South  are.  I 
have  the  original  Greek. 

(Here  the  hammer  fell.  Mr.  STEPHENS  asked  that  he  might  be 
permitted  to  go  on,  as  long  as  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr. 
CAMPBELL]  had  taken  up  his  time.  He  had  but  a  little  more  to 
say.  Mr.  GIDDINGS,  of  Ohio,  objected ;  and  what  follows  is  the 
substance  of  what  he  intended  to  say,  if  he  had  not  been  cut  off 
by  the  hour  rule.) 

The  word  in  the  original  is  doulos,  and  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  as  given  in  Robinson's  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  is  this 
— I  read  from  the  book:  "  In  the  family  the  doulos  was  one  bound 
to  serve,  a  slave,  and  was  the  property  of  his  master — '  a  living 
possession,' as  Aristotle  calls  him."  And  again:  "The  doulos, 
therefore,  was  never  a  hired  servant,  the  latter  being  called  mis- 
thios,"  etc.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  given  by  Robin 
son,  a  learned  doctor  of  divinity,  as  well  as  of  laws.  The  centu 
rion  on  that  occasion  said  to  Christ  himself,  "  I  say  to  my 
slave  do  this,  and  he  doeth  it,  and  do  Thou  but  speak  the  word, 
and  he  shall  be  healed."  What  was  the  Saviour's  reply?  Did  he 
tell  him  to  go  loose  the  bonds  that  fettered  his  fellow  man  ?  Did 
he  tell  him  he  was  sinning  against  God  for  holding  a  slave  ?  No 
such  thing.  But  we  are  told  by  the  inspired  penman,  that : 

"  When  Jesus  heard  it  he  marvelled,  and  said  to  them  that  followed  : 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel. 
And  I  say  unto  you  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west  and 
shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out  into  utter 
darkness  ;  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  And  Jesus  said 
unto  the  centurion,  Go  thy  way,  and  as  thou  hast  believed  so  be  it  done 
unto  thee.  And  his  servant  [or  slave]  was  healed  in  the  selfsame  hour." 

Was  Christ  a  "  doughface  ?"  Did  He  quail  before  the  slave 
power  ?  And  if  he  did  not  rebuke  the  lordly  centurion  for  speak- 


560  SPEECH    ON   THE    BILL   TO   ADMIT   KANSAS. 

ing  as  he  did  of  his  authority  over  his  slave,  but  healed  the  sick 
man,  and  said  that  he  had  not  found  so  great  faith  in  all  Israel 
as  he  had  in  his  master,  who  shall  now  presume,  in  His  name,  to 
rebuke  others  for  exercising  similar  authority,  or  say  that  their 
faith  ma3r  not  be  as  strong  as  that  of  the  centurion. 

In  no  place  in  the  New  Testament,  sir,  is  slavery  held  up  as 
sinful.  Several  of  the  Apostles  alluded  to  it,  but  none  of  them — 
not  one  of  them,  mentions  or  condemns  it  as  a  relation  sinful  in 
itself,  or  violative  of  the  laws  of  God,  or  even  Christian  duty. 
They  enjoin  the  relative  duties  of  both  master  and  slave.  Paul 
sent  a  runaway  slave,  Onesimus,  back  to  Philemon,  his  master. 
He  frequently  alludes  to  slavery  in  his  letters  to  the  churches, 
but  in  no  case  speaks  of  it  as  sinful.  To  what  he  says  in  one  of 
these  epistles  I  ask  special  attention.  It  is  1st  Timothy,  chapter 
6th,  and  beginning  with  the  1st  verse : 

"  1.  Let  as  many  servants  [douloi,  slaves  in  the  original,  which  I  have 
before  me]  as  are  under  the  yoke  [that  is,  those  who  are  the  most  abject  of 
slaves]  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  that  the  name  of 
God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed. 

"  2.  And  they  that  have  believing  masters,  [according  to  modern  doc 
trine,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  slaveholding  believer ;  so  did  not  think 
Paul,]  let  them  not  despise  [or  neglect  and  not  care  for]  them,  because 
they  are  brethren ;  but  rather  do  them  service,  because  they  are  faithful 
and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit.  These  things  teach  and  exhort. 

''3.  If  any  man  teach  otherwise  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words, 
even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  ac 
cording  to  godliness  : 

"  4.  He  is  proud,  [or  self-conceited,]  knowing  nothing  but  doting  about 
questions  and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings,  evil 
surmisings. 

"  5.  Perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  destitute  of  the 
truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness  :  from  such  withdraw  thyself" 

This  language  of  St.  Paul,  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  is 
just  as  appropriate  this  day,  in  this  House,  as  it  was  when  he 
penned  it  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  No  man  could  frame  a 
more  direct  reply  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio, 
[Mr.  GIDDINGS,]  and  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  [Mr.  DUNN,] 
than  is  here  contained  in  the  sacred  book.  What  does  all  this 
strife,  and  envy,  and  railings,  and  "  civil  war"  in  Kansas  come 
from,  but  the  TEACHINGS  of  those  in  our  clay  who  teach  otherwise 
than  Paul  taught,  and  "  do  not  consent  to  wholesome  words,  even 
the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?" 

Let  no  man,  then,  say  that  African  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the 
South,  incorporated  in,  and  sanctioned  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  is  in  violation  of  either  the  laws  of  nations,  the 
laws  of  nature,  or  the  laws  of  God ! 

And  if  it  "must  needs  be"  that  such  an  offence  shall  come  from 
this  source,  as  shall  sever  the  ties  that  now  unite  these  States 
together  in  fraternal  bonds,  and  involve  the  land  in  civil  war,  then 
"  wo  be  unto  them  from  whom  the  offence  cometh  !" 


SPEECH   ON    THE   PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION,    ETC.          561 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1856, 
THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850,  AND  THE  KANSAS- 
NEBRASKA  ACT  OF  1854. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES, 

JANUARY  6,  1857. 

The  President's  Annual  Message  being  under  consideration,  on  a  motion 
to  refer  and  print. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  I  have  no  desire  to  prolong  this  debate.  If  the 
House  had  not  manifested  so  decided  an  indisposition  to  take  a 
vote  the  other  clay,  I  should  have  remained  silent.  A  discussion 
on  the  President's  message,  and  the  subjects  embraced  in  it,  on  a 
motion  to  print  and  refer,  such  as  this,  commenced  and  continued 
as  it  has  been,  is  unusual  in  this  House.  These  topics  are  gener 
ally  considered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  after  the  message 
has  been  referred.  But  this  discussion,  to  me,  thus  far,  has  not 
been  uninteresting,  and  to  the  countiy,  I  trust,  it  will  not  be 
unprofitable. 

We  have  just  passed  an  important  crisis  in  our  history — one  of 
the  most  important,  if  not  the  most  important,  perhaps,  in  it.  We 
are  even  now  in  the  midst  of  events  which  will  hereafter  be  marked 
as  an  epoch  in  the  politics  of  the  country.  The  issues  in  the  late 
presidential  election  brought  into  array  two  great  parties,  (I  shall 
speak  only  of  two,  because  the  contest  was  mainly  between  them,) 
organized  upon  principles  well  defined,  well  ascertained,  and  di 
rectly  antagonistical,  hostile,  and  conflicting.  Old  parties  were 
dismembered  and  broken  up  ;  and  men  who  looked  upon  these 
principles  thus  put  in  issue  as  paramount  to  all  others,  took  their 
position  accordingly,  without  reference  to  past  associations, 
formed  upon  issues  no  longer  vital  or  living.  The  principles  en 
tering  into  the  canvass  were  clearly  and  openly  proclaimed,  and 
the  issues  on  them  squarely  met  on  both  sides.  These  issues  in 
volved  the  harmony,  if  not  the  stability  of  the  republic.  I  do  not 
augment  its  importance  when  I  say  that  the  result  was  a  fearful 
one.  It  was  so  considered  and  felt  from  one  extremity  of  the 
Union  to  the  other.  The  conflict  is  now  over.  The  issue,  so  far 
as  the  election  was  concerned,  is  now  decided.  The  result  is 
known.  The  immediate  danger  is  past.  The  public  mind,  so 
lately  wrought  up  to  the  highest  degree  of  excitement,  is  quiet 
ing  ;  and  we  may  do  well,  now  that  the  campaign  storm  is  over, 
and  its  perils  surmounted,  to  recount  some  of  the  incidents,  and 
as  voyagers  of  another  kind,  take  new  reckonings  for  our  future 
course.  With  these  feelings  I  enter  this  debate. 

And  may  I  not  pause  here  in  the  beginning  to  congratulate  the 

House — congratulate  the  country,  and  to  congratulate  even  you, 

Mr.  Speaker,  against  your  will,  upon  our  safe  deliverance  ?     Am 

I  not  right  in  assuming  that  the  news  of  the  result  of  the  late 

36 


562  SPEECH    ON   THE    PKESIDENTIAL   ELECTION",  ETC. 

election,  which  we  are  considering,  as  it  winged  its  flight  through 
the  land,  made  the  great  majority  of  the  people  throughout  this 
vast  republic  breathe  freer,  easier,  and  deeper,  everywhere  ?  To 
men  of  every  class  it  brought  joy  and  gladness.  To  the  plough 
man,  as  he  was  treading  his  furrow — to  the  mechanic,  as  he  ap 
plied  himself  to  his  daily  toil — to  the  merchant  at  bis  counter — to 
the  banker  at  his  desk — to  the  mariner,  as  he  breasted  the  surges 
of  the  sea,  as  well  as  to  the  statesman  pondering  over  questions 
of  deep  interest  to  all.  To  men  of  every  grade  and  occupation, 
including  some  even  of  those,  I  believe,  who  stood  in  opposition  to 
those  with  whom  I  acted,  all  breathed  freer  and  easier  when  the 
result  was  known.  The  whole  country  was  relieved  from  an  un 
certain  apprehension.  Men  felt  relief.  Trade  felt  it.  Commerce 
felt  it.  Business  in  its  every  department — in  its  quickened  energy 
and  activity — in  its  various  channels,  felt  it.  And,  sir,  I  can  say 
for  myself,  I  never  addressed  the  House  before  upon  any  subject 
with  greater  personal  gratification  than  I  do  at  this  time,  in  re 
view  of  the  questions  which  characterized  the  late  contest,  and 
the  principles  which  I  consider  as  having  been  sustained  by  the 
popular  verdict  rendered. 

Sir,  what  are  those  questions  and  principles  ?  Let  us  look  at 
them,  and  examine  them  according  to  their  intrinsic  merits. 
Some  gentlemen  seem  not  to  understand  them;  some  seem  to 
overlook  them ;  some  seem  not  to  appreciate  them,  or  to  under 
rate  them ;  while  others  still  seem  disposed  to  divert  the  mind 
from  the  great  leading  issues  to  minor  points,  and  attempt  to 
create  the  impression  that  the  election  turned  upon  the  latter,  and 
not  the  former,  and  that  nothing  of  real  and  vital  importance  has 
been  determined.  The  issues  were  dodged,  say  they,  in  some 
sections,  and  differently  expounded  in  different  sections.  This 
is  the  case  with  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  H.  MARSHALL,] 
who  so  earnestly  addressed  the  House  a  few  days  ago,  and  who 
I  regret  is  not  now  in  his  seat.  Hence  his  repeated  sallies  upon 
"  squatter  sovereignty,"  and  the  different  opinions  entertained  by 
some  persons  at  the  North,  as  well  as  the  South,  touching  the 
power  of  the  territorial  legislature  of  Kansas  to  exclude  slavery. 

Now,  sir,  I  do  not  intend  to  follow  those  wrho  either  ignore, 
overlook,  underrate,  or  endeavor  to  divert  attention  from  the  main 
and  essential  facts  of  the  case.  In  what  I  have  to  say  to-day  I 
shall  come  directly  to  the  subject.  I  maintain  that  two  great 
principles  have  been  sustained  and  vindicated  in  the  late  election, 
both  embracing  a  policy  vital  to  the  harmony  of  the  two  great 
sections  of  the  country,  and  essential  to  the  preservation  and 
continuance  of  the  union  of  these  States. 

These  principles  are  :  first,  that  there  shall  be  no  congressional 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  common  territory.  This  principle 
was  openly,  boldly,  and  universally  advocated  on  the  one  side, 
and  as  fearlessly  and  fiercely  denounced  on  the  other.  Besides 
this  there  was  another  principle,  just  as  boldly  and  unequivocally 


SPEECH    ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC.          563 

maintained  on  one  side,  and  as  fiercely  assailed,  though  not  so 
openly  denounced  in  convention,  on  the  other ;  and  that  is, 
secondly,  that  new  States  arising  and  springing  up  in  the  com 
mon  territories  may  and  shall  be  admitted  as  States  into  this 
Union  either  with  or  without  African  slavery,  as  the  people  there 
in  may  determine  for  themselves  when  they  come  to  form  their 
State  constitution.  These,  sir,  were  the  great  and  essential  prin 
ciples  of  the  late  contest.  They  were  proclaimed  at  Cincinnati, 
on  the  one  side,  in  the  following  words : 

"Resolved,  That  claiming  fellowship  with,  and  desiring  the  co-operation 
of  all  who  regard  the  preservation  of  the  Union  under  the  constitution  as 
the  paramount  issue,  and  repudiating  all  sectional  parties  and  platforms 
concerning  domestic  slavery,  which  seek  to  embroil  the  States  and  incite 
to  treason  and  armed  resistance  to  law  in  the  territories,  and  whose  avowed 
purposes,  if  consummated,  must  end  in  civil  war  and  disunion,  the  Ameri 
can  democracy  recognize  and  adopt  the  principles  contained  in  the 
organic  laws  establishing  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  em 
bodying  the  only  sound  and  safe  solution  of  the  '  slavery  question,'  upon 
which  the  great  national  idea  of  the  people  of  this  whole  country  can  re 
pose  in  its  determined  conservatism  of  the  Union — non-intervention  by 
Congress  ivith  slavery  in  State  and  territory,  or  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia. 

"  2.  That  this  was  the  basis  of  the  compromises  of  1850,  confirmed  by 
both  the  democratic  and  whig  parties  in  national  conventions,  ratified  by 
the  people  in  the  election  of  1852,  and  rightly  applied  to  the  organization 
of  territories  in  1854. 

"  3.  That  by  the  uniform  application  of  this  democratic  principle  to  the 
organization  of  territories,  and  to  the  admission  of  new  States,  with  or 
without  domestic  slavery,  as  they  may  elect,  the  equal  rights  of  all  the 
States  will  be  preserved  intact,  the  original  compacts  of  the  constitution 
maintained  inviolate,  and  the  perpetuity  and  expansion  of  this  Union  in 
sured  to  its  utmost  capacity  of  embracing  in  peace  and  harmony  every 
future  American  State  that  may  be  constituted  or  annexed  with  a  repub 
lican  form  of  government." 

" Resolved,  That  we  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  all  the  terri 
tories,  including  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  acting  through  the  legally  and 
fairly  expressed  will  of  a  majority  of  actual  residents,  and  whenever  the 
number  of  their  inhabitants  justifies  it,  to  form  a  constitution  with  or 
without  domestic  slavery,  and  be  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  terms  of 
perfect  equality  with  other  States." 

These  principles  involving  the  constitutional  rights  of  nearly 
one  half  the  States  of  this  Union,  and  the  equality  of  the  States 
themselves,  and  without  which  the  Union  of  the  States  cannot 
and  ought  not  to  be  maintained,  so  clearly  and  distinctly  set 
forth,  and  inscribed  upon  the  banners  of  one  party,  were  just  as 
distinctly  controverted  and  assailed  by  their  opponents  in  the 
canvass ;  for  though  the  platform  put  forth  by  the  other  great 
party  to  which  I  allude,  in  its  organization  at  Philadelphia,  says 
nothing  about  the  admission  of  a  slave  State,  yet  their  policy  leads 
to  the  same  result  as  if  the  denial  had  been  openly  proclaimed. 
Their  principles  were  announced  in  the  following  words : 

*'  That  the  constitution  confers  upon  Congress  sovereign  power  over  the 


564          SPEECH    ON   THE    PEESIDENTIAL    ELECTION,    ETC. 

territories  of  the  United  States  for  their  government,  and  that,  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  it  is  both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
prohibit  in  the  territories  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy  and 
slavery." 

Thus,  sir,  was  the  issue  distinctly  made  and  joined.  The 
friends  of  the  Union  under  the  constitution  on  the  one  side  rallied 
against  the  enemies  of  both,  as  I  conceive,  arrayed  on  the  other. 
There  was  no  dodging  or  evasion  anywhere,  on  the  part  of  those 
at  least  who  maintained  the  constitutional  right.  The  contest 
was  fierce.  The  issue,  so  long  as  the  result  was  doubtful,  was 
well  calculated  to  awaken  fearful  apprehensions.  The  battle  was 
gallantly  fought — the  victory  nobly  won.  Sectionalism  has  been 
signally  rebuked  and  constitutionalism  gloriously  triumphant. 
Nor  am  I  disposed  to  consider  the  victory  thus  achieved  as  a 
barren  triumph  only.  It  must  and  will  tend  to  settle,  if  it  has 
not  permanently  settled,  questions  of  the  gravest  import  and 
highest  importance.  It  has  effectually  re-affirmed  upon  a  rehear 
ing  the  principles  established  in  1850.  That  is  a  great  point 
gained.  The  principle  then  adopted  in  our  territorial  policy  was 
that  there  should  be  no  congressional  restriction  against  slavery 
in  the  territories. 

The  Wilmot  proviso  was  put  down  and  abandoned  ;  and  the 
people  settling  and  colonizing  the  public  domain  from  all  the 
States  alike,  without  hindrance,  limitation,  or  control  by  Congress, 
were  left  to  form  and  mold  their  institutions  without  any  restric 
tions  except  those  imposed  by  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  right  guarantied  of  being  admitted  into  the 
Union  either  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  might  determine 
for  themselves.  This  policy,  adopted  in  1850,  being  the  basis  of 
what  is  known  as  the  compromise  measures  of  that  year,  has,  I 
say,  been  re-affirmed.  It  was  thought  by  many,  on  the  adoption 
of  this  policy  in  1850,  that  agitation  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
would  cease,  so  far  as  the  territories  were  concerned,  at  least. 
But  subsequent  events  have  shown  that  the  snake  was  "  scotched" 
only,  not  "killed;"  and  it  may  be  now  that  it  is  only  scotched 
again,  and  not  yet  killed.  How  this  will  be  time  must  determine  ; 
but,  judging  from  the  past,  we  have  reason  to  hope.  The  prin 
ciples  entering  into  the  contest  between  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the 
elder  Adarns  were  not  more  clearly  marked  out,  and  squarely 
met  on  both  sides,  than  ihey  have  been  in  this ;  nor  were  they, 
in  my  judgment,  more  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  liber 
ties  of  this  countr}7",  upon  constitutional  principles,  than  the  ques 
tions  just  decided;  and  hereafter,  sir,  in  the  distant  future,  if 
that  bright  future  awaits  us  which  I  can  but  hope  does,  1856  will 
be  looked  back  to  and  dated  from,  just  as  1801  has  been  in  our  past 
history. 

I  stood  by  the  policy  adopted  in  1850,  and  now  I  trust  firmly 
established,  not  because  I  thought  it  gave  the  people  of  the  South 
the  full  measure  of  their  just  rights,  but  for  reasons  and  consid- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC.          565 

eratious  which  I  need  not  now  enumerate — for  the  same  rea 
sons  I  stood  by  it  in  1854,  when  it  was  carried  out  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill;  and  for  the  same  reasons,  with  a  re 
newed  steadfastness  of  purpose,  I  stood  by  it  in  its  greatest 
peril  in  1856. 

Much,  sir,  has  been  said  about  the  Kansas  bill  in  this  debate. 
Much  was  said  about  it  in  the  late  canvass.  It  was  the  leading 
topic  everywhere,  and  its  principles  were  made  the  turning  point 
everywhere ;  indeed,  the  issue — the  great  issue  in  the  contest, 
was  made  with  the  direct  view  of  having  its  principles  and  policy 
approved  and  endorsed  or  rejected  and  repudiated  by  the  people. 
It  is  because  this  measure,  so  directly  in  issue,  has  been  so  tri 
umphantly  sustained,  that  I  so  much  rejoice  in  the  result.  No 
man  can  say  that  this  issue  was  dodged.  It  was  presented  by  its 
friends  in  the  organization  of  this  House  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  session.  It  was  the  basis  of  the  organization  at  Cincinnati, 
and  formed  one  of  the  most  prominent  features  in  the  programme 
of  principles  there  announced.  And  while  it  was  not  named  in 
so  many  words  in  the  Philadelphia  programme,  yet  all  know  that 
the  party  there  assembled  was  organized  mainly  in  opposition  to 
that  measure  and  the  principles  upon  which  it  was  based.  In 
the  newspapers,  and  on  the  hustings,  nothing  was  railed  against 
so  bitterly  and  unceasingly  as  the  "iniquity,"  "the  cheat,"  and 
"the  infamy,"  of  the  Kansas  bill.  This  measure,  therefore,  may 
be  considered  as  one  of  the  things  most  emphatically  endorsed  by 
the  people  in  the  late  election. 

I  am  the  more  rejoiced  at  this,  because  I  know  something  of  the 
difficulties  attending  its  passage — the  violence,  the  passion,  and 
fanaticism  evoked  against  it.  I  well  remember  the  opinions  then 
given — that  the  North  never  would  submit  to  it ;  and  that  the 
seats  then  filled  by  those  who  voted  for  it  from  that  section, 
would  never  again  be  filled  by  men  of  like  sentiments.  By  indig 
nant  constituencies,  such  members  were  to  be  driven  forever  from 
the  public  councils.  Forty-four  members  from  the  North  in  this 
House  voted  for  the  bill,  only  one  of  whom,  I  believe,  acted  with 
its  enemies  in  the  late  struggle  for  its  maintenance.  To  the  pres 
ent  House,  owing  chiefly  to  causes  I  need  not  mention,  only  eigh 
teen  were  returned  from  that  section  in  favor  of  it.  This  was 
matter  of  great  boast  at  the  time.  But,  sir,  to  the  next  House, 
we  have  forty-nine  members  already  chosen  from  the  North  at  the 
late  elections,  upon  the  distinct  issue  of  their  advocacy  of  this 
bill.  This  is  five  more  than  the  number  originally  for  it ;  the 
cause  grows  stronger  instead  of  weaker.  This  is  one  of  the  re 
sults  of  the  late  election,  particularly  gratifying  to  me  in  itself. 
It  shows  what  men  of  nerve,  with  fidelity  to  the  constitution,  re 
lying  upon  the  virtue,  intelligence,  loyalty,  and  patriotism  of  the 
people,  can  effect.  Language  would  fail  me  in  an  attempt  to 
characterize  as  they  deserve  those  sterling  and  noble  spirits  who 
bore  the  constitutional  flag  in  the  North  against  the  popular  preju- 


566          SPEECH    ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

dice  and  fanaticism  of  the  people  of  their  own  section,  in  this 
contest. 

Sir,  it  is  an  easj'  thing  for  a  man  to  drift  along  with  the  pop 
ular  current.  Any  man  can  do  that.  Honors  thus  obtained  are 
as  worthless  as  they  are  cheap  ;  but  it  requires  nerve — it  requires 
all  the  elements  that  make  a  man,  to  stand  up  and  oppose  men 
in  their  errors,  and  advocate  truth  before  a  people  unwilling  to 
hear  and  receive  it — to  speak  to  those  who  "  having  ears,  hear 
not,  and  haAdng  eyes  see  not."  History  furnishes  some  examples 
of  this  sort;  but  the  history  of  the  world,  in  my  judgment,  has 
never  furnished  nobler  and  grander  specimens  of  this  virtue  than 
the  late  canvass  in  the  North.  When  a  man  discharges  his  duty 
upon  any  occasion,  he  deserves  respect  and  admiration ;  but 
when  a  man  discharges  his  duty  against  the  prevailing  prejudices 
of  those  around  him,  and  even  against  his  own  natural  feelings 
and  inclinations,  that  man  commands  something  higher  than 
respect  and  admiration.  The  elder  Brutus,  who  sat  in  judgment 
and  pronounced  sentence  against  his  own  son,  silencing  the  ad 
verse  promptings  of  a  father's  heart,  made  himself  the  "  noblest 
Roman  of  them  all ;"  and  those  statesmen  at  the  North  to  whom 
I  allude,  who  had  the  nerve,  in  the  crisis  just  passed,  to  stand  up 
and  vindicate  the  right,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
were  placed,  give  to  the  world  an  instance  of  the  moral  sublime 
in  human  action  never  surpassed  before.  Our  history  furnishes 
no  parallel  with  it.  The}^  bore  the  brunt  of  the  fight.  To  them 
the  preservation  of  the  republic  is  due  ;  and  if  our  republic 
proves  not  to  be  ungrateful,  they  will  receive  patriots'  rewards — 
more  to  be  desired  than  monuments  of  brass  or  marble — honored 
names  while  living,  and  honored  memories  when  dead. 

But  eulogy  is  not  my  object  at  this  time.  I  have  to  speak  of 
principles  on  this  occasion — not  men  ;  and  I  intend  to  speak  par 
ticularly  of  the  principles  of  the  Kansas  bill.  This  I  do,  because 
many  affect  not  to  understand  them,  and  some  say  that  different 
constructions  are  put  upon  them  by  different  people.  This,  sir, 
is  the  case  with  almost  every  act  of  legislation.  The  constitution 
itself  is  not  free  from  the  charge  of  admitting  different  construc 
tions  ;  but  whatever  difference  in  construction  may  exist  in  refer 
ence  to  the  Kansas  bill,  this  difference  arises  not  so  much  from 
the  words  of  the  bill  as  from  the  constitution.  The  gentleman 
from  Kentucky  to  whom  I  allude,  [Mr.  H.  MARSHALL,]  said  he 
would  have  voted  for  it  with  one  construction,  and  against  it  with 
another.  That  the  bill  and  its  principles,  with  whatever  construc 
tion,  has  been  sustained  by  the  elections,  he  and  all  must  admit. 
The  question  of  repeal  has  been  put  to  rest. 

Now,  then,  as  to  the  nature,  character,  objects,  effects,  and 
principles  of  the  bill.  What  does  it  do,  and  what  wras  it  intended 
to  accomplish  ?  On  this  point  I  affirm  and  maintain  that  it  did  but 
carry  out  in  good  faith  the  principles  and  policy  of  the  territorial 
acts  of  1850,  upon  the  subject  of  slavery — the  New  Mexico  and 


SPEECH   ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,   ETC.         567 

Utah  bills  for  which  that  gentleman  voted,  and  for  the  main 
tenance  of  which  both  he  and  I  were  pledged,  and  for  the  main 
tenance  of  which  both  the  old  whig  and  democratic  parties  were 
most  solemnly  pledged.  The  gentleman  admits  that  he  stood 
pledged  to  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah 
bills  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  This  is  what  I  maintain  the 
Kansas  bill  did,  and  that  it  is  subject  legitimately  to  the  same 
construction  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  as  those  bills  are,  and 
none  other.  I  have  the  bills  all  before  me.  Let  us  then  com 
pare  them  in  all  the  essential  particulars,  so  far  as  the  vexed 
question  of  slavery  is  concerned. 

But  before  doing  so,  let  me  premise  by  restating,  what  all  must 
admit,  that  the  basis  of  the  policy  adopted  in  1850  was  the 
abandonment  of  the  "  Wilmot  proviso" — another  name  for  con 
gressional  restriction,  and  the  establishment  of  the  principle  of 
"  non-intervention"  by  Congress,  either  for  or  against  slavery  in 
the  territories.  The  object  was  to  stay  the  aggressive  hand  of  this 
government,  and  to  quiet  sectional  agitation,  by  removing  this 
cause  of  excitement  from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  leaving  the 
question,  as  to  their  domestic  institutions,  to  be  settled  by  the 
people  to  be  affected  by  them  at  the  proper  time,  and  in  the 
proper  manner,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and 
that  it  should  be  no  objection  to  the  admission  of  any  new  State 
into  this  Union,  because  of  its  constitution  recognizing  or  tolera 
ting  slavery.  The  principle  of  a  division  of  the  territory  proposed 
in  1820,  having  been  repudiated  by  the  North,  a  return  to  original 
principles  was  found  to  be  the  only  safe  solution  of  the  question. 
With  this  view  and  object  the  New  Mexico  bill  contains  these 
clauses : 

"SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  that  portion  of  the  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States  bounded  as  follows,"  etc.,  etc.,  etc.,  "be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  erected  into  a  temporary  government,  by  the  name  of  the 
territory  of  New  Mexico:  Provided"  etc.,  etc.:  "And  provided  further, 
That  when  admitted  as  a  State,  the  said  territory,  or  any  portion  of  the 
same,  shall  be  received  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their 
constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  admission." 

"SEC.  7.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  legislative  power  of  the 
territory  shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

"SEC.  17.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  which  are  not  locally  inapplicable  shall  have  the  same 
force  $nd  effect  within  the  said  territory  of  New  Mexico  as  elsewhere 
within  the  United  States." 

These  are  all  essential  clauses  in  the  New  Mexico  bill  upon 
the  subject.  Those  in  the  Utah  bill  I  need  not  read  ;  for  if  not 
identical  in  words,  they  are  in  substance.  I  will  now  read  the 
provisions  of  the  Kansas  bill  on  the  same  subject : 

"  SEC.  19.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  that  part  of  the  territory 
of  the  United  States  included  within  the  following  limits,"  etc.,  etc.,  "  be, 
and  the  same  is  hereb'y  created  into  a  temporary  government,  by  the 


SPEECH    ON    THE   PKESIDENTTAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

name  of  the  territory  of  Kansas  ;  and  when  admitted  as  a  State,  or  States, 
the  said  territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same,  shall  be  received  into  the 
Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the 
time  of  their  admission." 

"SEC.  24.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  legislative  power  of  the 
territory  shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

"  SEC.  32.  And  be  it  further  enacted,'"  *  *  *  "  that  the  constitution 
and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall 
have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  territory  of  Kansas  as  else 
where  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act 
preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March 
6, 1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  territories,  as  recognized  by  the 
legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  is  hereby 
declared  inoperative  and  void ;  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  act,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude 
it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  :  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  con 
tained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation 
which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  6th  of  March,  1820,  either 
protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or  abolishing  slavery." 

From  this  expose  it  will  be  seen  how  clearly  the  policy,  marked 
out  in  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills  in  1850,  was  followed  in 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854.  The  clauses  in  that  por 
tion  of  the  bill  relating  to  Nebraska  are  identical  in  substance 
with  those  I  have  read  concerning  Kansas.  The  second  section 
of  the  New  Mexico  bill  is  identical  in  substance  with  the  nine 
teenth  section  of  the  Kansas  bill.  The  seventh  section  of  the  New 
Mexico  bill,  which  confers  power — and  all  the  power  possessed 
by  the  territorial  legislature  under  that  bill — is  identical  in  sub 
stance  with  the  twenty-fourth  section  of  the  Kansas  bill,  confer 
ring  like  powers  upon  the  territorial  legislature  there.  In  both 
the  power  is  granted  to  legislate  upon  all  rightful  subjects  of 
legislation  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  provisions  of  the  organic  act.  All  the  powers  the  legislature 
of  New  Mexico  holds,  it  possesses  by  virtue  of  the  grant  in  the 
seventh  section  ;  and  all  the  powers  the  legislature  of  Kansas 
holds,  are  by  virtue  of  a  similar  grant  in  the  twenty-fourth  section 
of  the  Kansas  bill.  If  the  territorial  legislature,  in  the  one  case, 
can  rightfully  exclude  slavery,  then  it  can  in  the  other  ;  and  if  it 
cannot  in  New  Mexico,  then  it  cannot  in  Kansas  ;  for  the  flirty- 
second  section  of  the  Kansas  bill,  about  which  so  much  has  been 
said,  on  account  of  its  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  and  its 
"  squatter  sovereignty"  construction,  confers  no  additional  grant 
of  power.  This  is  so  clear  that  argument  to  elucidate  it  is  un 
necessary.  Then,  why  was  it  inserted  ?  some  have  asked.  This, 
it  is  said,  is  what  has  given  rise  to  all  the  agitation.  This,  it  is 
said,  is  what  kindled  anew  the  sectional  strife,  settled  and  quieted 
in  1850.  This  is  what  has  been  called  the  mischievous  work  of 


SPEECH    ON    THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC.  569 

designing  demagogues  to  promote  their  selfish  purposes  and 
objects.  This  is  what  a  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  SHERMAN] 
said  the  other  day  was  the  "indignity"  offered  to  the  North, 
which  conservative  men  of  that  section,  who  stood  upon  the 
settlement  of  1850,  could  not  brook  ;  and  which  gave  rise  to  that 
sectional,  anti-slavery,  and  abolition  organization,  which  has 
lately  been  so  signally  rebuked.  Not  so,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  may 
be  that  it  was  the  occasion,  but  it  was  not  the  cause,  of  this 
agitation.  That  sprung  from  the  still  living  anti-slavery  opposi 
tion  to  the  territorial  policy  adopted  in  1850;  for  before  these 
words  in  relation  to  the  Missouri  restriction  were  in  the  bill  the 
agitation  was  commenced. 

These  words,  it  will  be  remembered,  were  not  in  the  original 
bill  as  it  was  reported  to  the  Senate ;  they  were  put  in  afterward 
by  way  of  amendment;  and  before  the  amendment  was  offered, 
and  while  the  bill  stood  almost  identically  in  words,  certainly  so 
in  substance,  with  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills,  so  far  as 
slavery  is  concerned,  abolition  denunciations  against  its  provi 
sions  were  commenced.  The  bloodhounds  of  fanaticism  were 
already  unleashed,  and  were  heard  in  full  cry  on  the  track  of 
those  whose  only  and  sole  object  was  in  good  faith  to  carry  out 
the  territorial  policy  of  1850.  This  I  say  in  vindication  of  the 
truth  of  history,  as  well  as  in  defence  of  those  whose  motives, 
conduct,  and  patriotism  have  been  so  bitterly  assailed  by  the 
abolition  leaders  at  the  North,  who  were  no  less  hostile  to  the 
New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills  of  1850,  than  they  were  to  the 
Kansas  bill  of  1854,  and  who  denounced,  abused,  vilified,  and 
aspersed  the  characters  of  those  who  advocated  and  defended 
the  measures  of  1850,  as  rancorously  as  they  did  those  who 
voted  for  and  sustained  this  particular  clause  of  the  Kansas  bill 
in  1854. 

Why  then,  sir,  were  these  words  put  in  the  thirty-second  sec 
tion  of  the  bill  ?  I  will  tell  you.  They  were  necessary  and 
essential  to  carry  out  the  polic3T  of  1850.  That  had  to  be  done 
in  good  faith,  in  spite  of  clamor,  coming  from  whatever  quarter 
it  might.  In  the  seventeenth  section  of  the  New  Mexico  bill, 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  not  locally  inap 
plicable,  were  extended  to  that  territory.  By  the  thirty-second 
section  of  the  Kansas  bill,  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  not  locally  inapplicable,  were,  in  the  same  way, 
extended  to  that  territory.  But  in  doing  this  it  became  abso 
lutely  necessary  to  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820. 
That  section  was  a  prohibition  of  slavery  by  Congress  in  the 
territory.  It  was  the  "  Wilmot  proviso"  in  effect.  It  was  locally 
applicable  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  -for  they  were  part  of  the 
Louisiana  purchase  to  which  that  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of 
36°  30'  applied.  Hence,  if  all  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
not  locally  inapplicable,  had  been  extended  to  these  terri 
tories,  it  would  have  been  a  re-enactment  or  reaffirmance  of 


570  SPEECH   ON   THE  PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

congressional  restriction,  an  abandonment  of  which  was  the 
basis  of  the  territorial  legislation  of  1850.  There  was  no  such 
anterior  law  of  the  United  States  applicable  to  New  Mexico  and 
Utah,  requiring  an  exception  in  those  bills.  The  exception, 
therefore,  in  the  Kansas  bill,  became  absolutely  necessary  to  main 
tain  the  same  policy.  The  words  used  were  the  proper  ones  for 
the  occasion.  They  are,  "except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act," 
etc.,  "  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-interven 
tion  by  Congress,"  etc.,  "  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850, 
commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  is  hereby  declared 
inoperative  and  void."  The  words  that  follow  this  exception  are 
but  explanatory  of  the  effect  of  the  exception  itself,  which  was  to 
leave  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  to  the  people,  to 
manage,  control,  and  settle  for  themselves,  subject  to  no  restric 
tions  but  that  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  It 
removed  the  subject  of  slavery  from  the  action  of  this  govern 
ment,  and  left  it  where  the  bills  of  1850  left  it.  This  was  the 
object,  and  this  is  the  effect  of  the  words.  They  give  no  addi 
tional  power  to  the  territorial  legislature.  This  bill,  therefore, 
does  nothing  but  carry  out  the  policy  of  1850.  And  how  any 
man  who  is  in  favor  of  the  acts  of  1850  can  complain  of,  or  be 
opposed  to,  the  act  of  1854,  I  cannot  conceive.  The  democratic 
party,  as  I  have  said,  pledged  themselves  in  1852  to  the  mainten 
ance  of  those  acts.  I  have  the  resolutions  of  their  convention 
before  me.  The  whig  party,  at  Baltimore,  did  the  same  thing. 
They  planted  themselves  upon  the  territorial  policy  of  1850,  as 
"  a  final  settlement,  in  principle  and  in  substance,  of  the  subjects" 
to  which  the  acts  related  ;  holding  this  policy  to  be  "  essential  to 
tlie  nationality  of  the  whig  party,  and  the  integrity  of  the  Union," 
and  they  pledged  themselves  "  to  discountenance  all  attempts  to 
continue  or  renew  such  agitation" — that  is,  slavery  agitation  on 
the  territorial  policy  adopted  in  those  bills — "  whenever,  wherever, 
or  however  made." 

Now,  sir,  was  a  redemption  of  this  pledge,  to  abide  by  the  set 
tlement,  "in  principle  and  substance,"  a  renewal  of  the  agita 
tion  ?  Was  its  redemption  its  own  violation  ?  "Was  the  pledge 
intended  to  be  redeemed,  or  was  it  but  a  mockery  ?  And  here 
permit  me  to  say,  I  do  not  treat  this  subject  as  a  partizan.  My 
object  is  not  to  build  up  one  party,  or  to  put  down  another, 
merely  for  party's  sake.  There  are  objects  with  me,  I  trust, 
higher,  and  worthier,  and  more  permanent,  than  the  building  up 
of  any  organization  in  the  country  barely  to  hold  office,  or  to 
"share  the  spoils,"  as  they  are  termed.  Parties  I  have  little 
regard  for,  except  so  far  as  they,  in  my  judgment,  subserve, 
secure,  and  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  country.  But  what 
avail  was  the  settlement  of  1850,  as  a  final  one,  and  the  princi 
ples  then  established,  if  they  were  not  to  be  carried  out  in  future 
legislation?  Sir,  consistency,  to  say  nothing  of  duty  and  patriot 
ism,  required  it  to  be  done.  This  is  what  was  done  j  and  this 


SPEECH   ON  THE  PKESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,   ETC.          571 

is  what  the  late  popular  verdict  requires  shall  be  done  in  all 
future  territorial  bills.  And  if  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  in 
fancy  or  otherwise,  sees  "  squatter  sovereignty,"  as  he  calls  it,  or 
the  "  power"  of  the  territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery  (as 
he  defines  that  term  to  mean)  in  the  Kansas  bill,  then  he  must  see 
the  same  power  and  the  same  "  squatter  sovereignty"  in  the  New 
Mexico  and  Utah  bills,  for  which  he  voted,  and  which  he  still 
approves.  If  it  is  in  the  one,  it  is  in  the  others.  But  he  admits 
that,  by  his  own  construction,  the  Kansas  bill  does  not  contain 
it.  It  is  only  to  be  found,  according  to  his  opinion,  in  the  con 
struction  of  others.  Well,  whatever  construction  can  be  put  upon 
the  Kansas  bill  in  this  particular,  may  be  put  upon  the-  New 
Mexico  and  Utah  bills  ;  and  the  same  men  who  do  put  this  con 
struction  upon  it  put  the  same  upon  the  others  also.  The  gen 
tleman,  I  imagine,  cannot  point  to  a  single  man  in  Congress,  or 
out  of  Congress,  who  applies  it  to  the  one  and  not  to  the 
others.  The  doctrines  they  now  hold  in  reference  to  the 
Kansas  bill  they  held  in  1850,  and  still  hold  in  reference  to 
the  others.  Their  construction  did  not  drive  or  prevent  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  H.  MARSHALL]  then  from  voting 
for  and  sustaining  those  measures  ;  nor  will  it  drive  or  prevent 
me  now  from  sustaining  and  defending  this  one.  In  addition  to 
this  I  may  say,  that  most  of  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  that  the 
territorial  legislatures  can  exclude  slavery,  do  not  derive  the 
power  to  do  so  from  the  territorial  bills  at  all ;  but  they  maintain 
it  as  an  inherent,  independent,  and  sovereign  right  of  the  people, 
not  derived  in  any  wa}7  from  Congress.  This  is  the  essence  of 
the  doctrine  of  "  squatter  sovereignty/'  about  which  we  have 
heard  so  much  lately,  and  about  which  gentlemen  seem  to  have 
such  indistinct  ideas. 

The  true  import  of  this  word  can  be  best  understod  by  recur 
ring  to  its  origin.  It  sprang  from  the  idea  advocated  by  some, 
that  the  people  of  a  territory  were  endowed  with  sovereign 
powers,  inherently  and  independently  of  any  action  of  Con 
gress.  This,  it  was  said,  would  be  recognizing  sovereignty 
in  the  intruders  and  squatters  upon  the  public  domain.  Hence, 
the  doctrine  was  dubbed  "squatter  sovereignty."  No  such  doc 
trine  is  to  be  found  either  in  the  Kansas,  Utah,  or  New  Mexico 
bills.  All  the  powers  they  can  exercise  they  derive  directly 
from  this  government,  in  their  organic  acts.  All  their  machinery 
of  government  proceeds  from  us.  They  hold  it  by  grant,  and 
not  by  sovereign  right.  They  hold  from  us,  and  through  us,  and 
not  independently  of  us.  Their  temporary  governments  were 
created  or  erected  by  us.  Their  legislative  powers  are  exercised 
by  permission— "  ex  gratia,"  not  "  ex  debito  justitise."  All  the 
rights  and  powers  of  government  possessed  by  Congress  over 
the  territories  are  granted  to  the  people  there — conferred  upon 
them  in  the  bills  organizing  their  territorial  government,  and  all 
the  governmental  power  over  them  was  thus  granted ;  but  the 


572  SPEECH   ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

power  to  restrain,  restrict,  or  prohibit  slavery,  or  to  prevent  the 
immigration  and  diffusion  of  any  class  of  American  population, 
is  not,  in  my  judgment,  amongst  those  thus  granted,  for  Con 
gress  does  not  possess  this  power  to  grant  it. 

This,  sir,  is  a  government  of  limited  powers.  All  the  powers 
it  can  can  rightfully  exercise  or  confer,  are  such  as  are  expressly 
delegated  in  the  constitution,  and  such  as  may  be  necessary  to 
carry  out  those  which  are  expressty  named.  The  power  to 
govern  the  territories,  or  to  provide  governments  for  them,  is 
itself  not  one  of  those  expressly  granted.  It  is  but  an  incident 
merely  to  some  of  the  expressly  granted  powers,  and  cannot  go 
beyond  the  necessities  attending  the  execution  of  the  express 
powers  in  carrying  out  the  specified  objects  for  which  they  were 
granted.  The  exclusion  or  restraining  of  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories,  or  the  permission  of  the  immigration  of  one  class  to  the 
exclusion  of  another,  whether  white  or  black,  bond  or  free,  was 
not  amongst  any  of  those  objects,  and  is  not  a  necessary  incident 
.in  carrying  any  of  them  out.  Nor  is  the  exclusion  of  slavery 
included  amongst  the  "rightful  subjects"  of  legislation  granted 
to  the  territories,  while  the  right  to  legislate  on  the  subject  may 
be ;  for  the  right  to  exclude  is  not  embraced  in  the  power  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject.  To  protect  property  is  the  duty  of  gov 
ernment,  and  the  power  to  do  this  does  not  include  the  power  or 
right  to  destroy  it ;  and  to  protect  it  may  be  a  rightful  subject 
of  legislation,  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  but  not  to  destroy  it.  The  people  in  the  territories  have 
this  right  or  power  to  regulate  and  protect,  but  not  the  other ; 
for  Congress,  under  the  limitations  of  the  constitution,  did  not 
have  that  to  give  them.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  sovereignty — 
absolute  political  sovereignty  I  mean — in  the  people  of  the  ter 
ritories,  either  by  inherent  right  or  by  grant  from  Congress. 
There  is  no  such  sovereignty  over  the  territories  even  in  Congress, 
or  all  the  departments  of  the  general  government  combined. 
This  resides  in  the  people  of  the  separate  States,  as  part  of  that 
residuum  of  powers  not  delegated  by  them  in  the  constitution, 
and  which  in  that  instrument  are  expressly  reserved  "to  the 
States  respectively  or  the  people ;"  and  passes  out  of  them  only 
in  the  mode  provided  for  in  the  constitution,  which  is  on  the  ad 
mission  of  new  States.  '  The  public  domain  belongs  to  the  people 
of  all  the  States,  as  common  property ;  and  so  long  as  it  is  under 
territorial  government,  should  be  subject  only  to  such  "  needful 
rules  and  regulations,"  in  its  disposition,  as  maybe  necessary  for 
its  free  and  equal  use  and  enjoyment  by  all  alike,  and  for  its  coloni 
zation  and  settlement  by  all  alike,  without  any  unjust  discrim 
ination  against  any,  either  by  Congress  or  any  territorial  govern 
ment  they  may  institute,  until  the  number  of  inhabitants  may 
justify  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State  ;  and  then,  by 
the  express  terms  of  the  constitution,  they  may  be  admitted,  with 
as  absolute  sovereignty  within  their  jurisdiction,  as  the  other 


SPEECH    OX   THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC.          573 

members  of  the  Confederacy.  Then,  and  in  this  way,  the  other 
wise  tin  delegated  sovereignty  of  the  whole  people  of  the  States 
respectively  passes  from  them  into  the  new  State,  upon  her 
recognition  and  admission  as  a  coequal  in  the  Union. 

But  I  am  asked  :  "Is  not  the  government  of  the  United  States 
sovereign  ?"  and  "  whether  it  is  not  the  representative  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  over  the  terri 
tories?"  In  reply,  I  state,  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  in  my  judgment,  is  clothed  with  certain  sovereign 
powers  ;  but  these  powers  are  limited  to  specified  objects.  In 
the  legitimate  and  proper  exercise  of  these  powers,  to  the  ex 
tent  of  their  grant,  it  may  be  considered  as  sovereign  or  supreme 
as  any  other  government,  just  as  sovereign  as  the  Autocrat  of 
Russia,  in  whom  is  concentrated  all  power  ;  but  tftese  powers  with 
which  it  is  clothed,  extend  only  to  such  subjects  as  are  covered 
by  the  grant  delegating  them.  Over  all  others,  it  has  no  power 
or  authority  to  act  at  all.  So  far  from  being  sovereign  as  to 
these,  it  is  perfectly  impotent.  It  cannot  rightfully  exercise  any 
authority  whatever  upon  any  matter  not  committed  to  its  charge 
by  grant  from  the  people  of  the  States  respectively  ;  and  it  can 
wieM  the  sovereign  powers  of  the  people  thus  delegated  to  it 
only  over  such  subjects,  and  to  accomplish  such  objects,  as  the 
people  have  authorized  it  to  exercise  authority  upon.  To 
this  extent  it  is  the  representative,  or  rather  the  active  and 
living  embodiment  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  It  is, 
in  other  words,  the  organ,  or  constitutes  the  channels  through 
which  their  sovereignty  acts  on  the  subjects  specified  in  the 
grant  of  its  powers.  But  the  appropriation  of  the  public  domain 
to  one  class  of  citizens,  to  the  exclusion  of  another,  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  scope  of  these  powers,  or  the  objects  for  which  they 
were  conferred. 

And  as  to  its  being  the  representative  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  in  connection  with  the  subject  under  consideration,  I  have 
but  a  word  further  in  reply.  Let  me  illustrate.  The  corporate 
authorities  of  any  town  or  city  are  the  representatives,  to  a  cer 
tain  extent,  of  those  who  belong  to  the  municipality.  They  are 
the  representatives  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  conferred  on  them 
by  their  charter.  Now,  suppose  adjacent  lands  should  become  in 
any  way  the  property  of  the  corporation— the  common  property 
of  all — in  which  every  one  in  the  town  or  city  had  an  equal  inter 
est  ;  and  suppose  that  the  charter  (whence  the  authorities  derive 
all  their  powers)  conferred  upon  them  no  power  to  dispose  of  this 
common  property,  except  to  "make  needful  rules  and  regulations" 
concerning  it,  for  the  equal  benefit  of  all :  would  any  man  main 
tain  that  the  authorities  in  this  case  could  appropriate  the  whole 
of  it  to  one  class  of  the  citizens  to  the  exclusion  of  another  ?  or  that 
they  could  empower  any  portion  of  the  tenants  in  common  get 
ting  upon  it  to  exclude  others  ?  I  use  this  illustration  barely  to 
show  the  character  in  which  the  general  government  may  be  con- 


574          SPEECH   ON   THE    PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

sidered  a  representative  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  over  the  common  territories.  And  for  this  pur 
pose  the  analogy  is  good.  The  general  government  holds  the 
common  property  in  the  territories  as  a  trustee.  The  people  of 
all  the  States  are  the  "  cestui  que  trust,"  and  no  act  of  the  trustee, 
or  those  acting  under  the  authority  of  the  trustee,  can  rightfully 
exclude  any,  so  long  as  the  paramount  authority,  or  absolute 
political  sovereignty  over  the  territory,  is  in  abeyance. 

But  why  pursue  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  construction 
by  some  upon  the  Kansas  bill,  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Ken 
tucky  [Mr.  H.  MARSHALL]  alluded,  is  wrong,  and  not  legitimate? 
He  admits  it  himself.  But  he  said  that,  with  the  "squatter  sov 
ereignty"  construction,  or  that  which  authorizes  the  territorial 
legislature  to  exclude  slavery,  the  Kansas  bill  is  no  better  to  the 
South,  practically,  than  the  old  Missouri  restriction  which  it  took 
off';  and  with  this  construction  he  would  not,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  so  far  as  the  rights  of  the  South  are  concerned,  give 
"  the  toss  of  a  copper"  between  it  and  the  positive  congressional 
exclusion  aimed  at  by  those  calling  themselves  republicans.  In 
this,  sir,  I  am  far  from  agreeing  with  him ;  for  even  with  this  con 
struction — erroneous  as  I  have  shown  it  to  be — the  South  has  an 
equal  chance,  but  before  they  had  none  ;  and  under  anti-slavery 
rule,  such  as  that  party  would  subject  us  to,  we  would  have  none. 

But  the  practical  point,  looking  to  the  probable  prospect  of 
any  of  these  territories  becoming  slave  States,  dwindles  into  per 
fect  insignificance  in  view  of  the  principle  involved.  That  prin 
ciple  is  one  of  constitutional  right  and  equality.  Its  surrender 
carries  with  it  submission  to  unjust  and  unconstitutional  legis 
lation,  the  sole  object  of  which  would  be  to  array  this  govern 
ment,  which  claims  our  allegiance,  in  direct  hostility,  not  only 
to  our  interests,  but  the  very  frame  work  of  our  political  organi 
zations.  Who  looked  to  the  practical  importance  of  the  "  Wil- 
mot  proviso"  to  the  South  in  1850,  when  it  was  attempted  to  be 
fixed  upon  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  with  half  so  much  interest  as 
they  did  to  the  principle  upon  which  it  was  founded  ?  It  was 
the  principle  that  was  so  unyieldingly  resisted  then.  It  was 
this  principle,  or  the  threatened  action  of  Congress  based  upon 
it,  which  the  whole  South,  with  a  voice  almost  unanimous,  in 
cluding  the  gentleman  himself,  then  said  "  They  would  not  and 
ought  not  to  submit  to !  Principles,  sir,  are  not  only  outposts, 
but  the  bulwarks  of  all  constitutional  liberty ;  and,  if  these  be 
yielded,  or  taken  by  superior  force,  the  citadel  will  soon  follow. 
A  people  who  would  maintain  their  rights  must  look  to  princi 
ples  much  more  than  to  practical  results.  The  independence  of 
the  United  States  was  declared  and  established  in  the  vindica 
tion  of  an  abstract  principle.  Mr.  Webster  never  uttered  a 
great  truth  in  simpler  language — for  which  he  was  so  much  dis 
tinguished — than  when  he  said,  "  The  American  Revolution  was 
fought  on  a  preamble  "  It  was  not  the  amount  of  the  tax  on  tea, 


SPEECH    ON   THE   PKESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC.          575 

but  the  assertion  (in  the  preamble  of  the  bill  taking  off  the  tax) 
of  the  right  in  the  British  Parliament  to  tax  the  colonies,  with 
out  representation,  that  our  fathers  resisted ;  and  it  was  the 
principle  of  unjust  and  unconstitutional  Congressional  action 
against  the  institutions  of  all  the  southern  States  of  this  Union, 
that  we,  in  1850,  resisted  by  our  votes,  and  would  have  resisted 
by  our  arms  if  the  wrong  had  been  perpetrated.  Those  from  the 
South  who  supported  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills,  did  so 
because  this  principle  of  Congressional  restriction  was  abandoned 
in  them.  It  was  not  from  any  confidence,  in  a  practical  point  of 
view,  that  these  territories  ever  would  be  slave  States.  The 
great  constitutional  and  essential  right  to  be  so  if  they  chose 
was  secured  to  them.  That  was  the  main  point.  This,  at  least, 
was  the  case  with  myself;  for,  when  I  looked  out  upon  our  vast 
territories  of  the  west  and  northwest,  I  did  not  then,  nor  do  I 
now,  consider  that  there  was  or  is  much  prospect  of  many  of 
them,  particularly  the  latter,  becoming  slave  States.  Besides 
the  laws  of  climate,  soil,  and  productions,  there  is  another  law 
not  unobserved  by  me,  which  seemed  to  be  quite  as  efficient  in  its 
prospective  operations  in  giving  a  different  character  to  their 
institutions,  and  that  is  the  law  of  population.  There  were,  at 
the  last  census,  nearly  twenty  millions  of  whites  in  the  United 
States,  and  only  a  fraction  over  three  millions  of  blacks,  or 
slaves.  The  stock  from  which  the  population  of  the  latter  class 
must  spring,  is  too  small  to  keep  pace  in  diffusion,  expansion, 
and  settlement,  with  the  former.  The  ratio  is  not  much  greater 
than  one  to  seven,  to  say  nothing  of  foreign  immigration,  and 
the  known  facts  in  relation  to  the  tardiness  with  which  slave 
population  is  pushed  into  new  countries  and  frontier  settlements. 
Hence  the  greater  importance  to  the  South  of  a  rigid  adherence 
to  principles  on  this  subject  vital  to  them.  If  the  slightest 
encroachments  of  power  are  permitted  or  submitted  to  in  the 
territories,  they  may  reach  the  States  ultimately.  And  although 
I  looked,  and  still  look,  upon  the  probabilities  of  Kansas  being  a 
slave  State,  as  greater  than  I  did  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  yet  I 
voted  for  the  bill  of  1854,  with  the  view  of  maintaining  the  prin 
ciple  much  more  than  I  did  to  such  practical  results.  As  a 
southern  man,  considering  the  relation  w^hich  the  African  bears 
to  the  white  race  in  the  southern  States,  as  the  very  best  condi 
tion  for  the  greatest  good  of  both ;  and  as  a  national  man,  look 
ing  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country,  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  whole  by  a  preservation  of  the  balance  of  power,  -as  far  as 
can  be,  (for  after  all,  the  surest  check  to  encroachments  is  the 
inability  to  make  them,)  I  should  prefer  to  see  Kansas  come  into 
the  Union  as  a  slave  State ;  but  it  was  not  with  the  view  or  pur 
pose  of  effecting  that  result  that  I  voted  for  the  Kansas  bill,  any 
more  than  it  was  with  the  view  or  purpose  of  accomplishing 
similar  results  as  to  New  Mexico  and  Utah  that  I  supported  the 
measures  of  1850.  It  was  to  secure  the  right  to  come  in  as  a 


576          SPEECH    ON   THE    PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

slave  State,  if  the  people  there  so  wished,  and  to  maintain  a 
principle,  which  I  then  thought,  and  still  think,  essential  to  the 
peace  of  the  country  and  the  ultimate  security  of  the  rights  of 
the  South. 

But  it  has  been  said,  if  this  was  the  principle  aimed  at  in  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  why  was  it  not  extended  to 
Minnesota  and  other  territories  over  which  that  restriction  ex 
tended  ?  Why  was  it  taken  off  Kansas  and  Nebraska  and  not 
Minnesota  ?  All  I  have  to  say  in  reply  to  this  is,  that  the  bill 
of  1854  did  take  it  off  wherever  the  bill  of  1820  put  it  on.  The 
thirty-second  section  of  the  Kansas  bill,  which  I  have  read,  for 
the  reasons  therein  stated,  declares  the  eighth  section  of  the  act 
of  1820  to  be  inoperative  and  void ;  and  wherever  that  eighth 
section  extended,  this  "inoperative  and  void"  is  written  upon  it. 
Wherever  it  .received  acknowledgment  before,  it  received  its 
death-blow,  if  you  please,  by  this  thirty-second  section  ;  and  if  it 
extended  over  Minnesota,  it  was  repealed  there  as  fully  and  com 
pletely  as  it  was  over  Kansas. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  perhaps  misunderstood  the  gentle 
man,  and  I  desire  to  make  an  inquiry  for  information.  Do  I 
understand  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to  take  the  ground  that 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  removes  the  restriction  against  slaveiy 
over  Minnesota,  and  the  other  territories  belonging  to  the  gene 
ral  government  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  said  that  that  restriction  was  declared  null 
and  void  wherever  it  extended.  That  is  the  effect  of  the  lan 
guage  of.  the  act. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  Then  I  would  ask  him  whether  he 
understands  that  that  repealing  clause  extends  beyond  the  terri 
torial  limits  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  understand  it  to  be  a  declaration,  that  the 
restriction  of  1820,  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  estab 
lished  in  1850,  is  null  and  void.  It  is  not  confined  to  one  place 
more  than  to  another.  I  understand  it  rather  to  be  declaratory 
than  otherwise.  I  understand  it  as  being  put  in  there  to  prevent 
a  contrary  construction. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  want  to  know  the  gentleman's  own 
opinion  as  to  its  legal  effect  on  other  territories. 

Mr  STEPHENS.  My  opinion  is  that  it  had  no  legal  effect  at  all. 
[Laughter.]  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  on  a  strict  construc 
tion  of  the  constitution,  the  restriction  was  null  and  void  from 
the  beginning. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  ask  the  gentleman  whether  he  has 
not  recently  changed  his  opinion  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Never  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  understood  the  gentleman,  in  a  debate 
not  very  long  since,  to  have  avowed  a  different  opinion. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  If  the  gentleman  will  turn  to  the  report  of  that 
debate,  he  will  see  what  I  then  said  to  him  on  this  point. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION,    ETC.         577 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  recollect  it  very  well.  The  first 
question  which  I  put,  the  gentleman  declined  to  answer ;.  but  as 
I  understood  in  that  debate  to  which  he  has  referred — I  may  be 
mistaken,  but  the  record  can  be  easily  produced — while  he  de 
clined  to  give  an  opinion  on  the  question  of  power,  he  took  the 
ground  that  the  exercise  of  it  would  be  such  an  act  of  usurpa 
tion  as  would  justify  his  section  of  the  country  in  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentleman  might  have  understood  me  to 
say  that,  on  the  principle  of  a  just  division,  under  that  clause  of 
the  constitution  which  empowers  Congress  to  make  "  needful 
rujes  and  regulations,"  Congress  might,  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  harmony,  make  a  fair  division  of  the  common  lands  as 
property  ;  but  when  the  principle  of  division  was  set  aside,  then 
the  attempt  to  make  it  was  null  and  void  ;  and  that  any  act  of 
Congress  appropriating  the  whole  of  the  common  property  in 
the  territories  to  one  class,  to  the  exclusion  of  another,  would  be 
an  abuse  of  a  power  tantamount  to  a  usurpation,  which  would 
justify  resistance. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  should  be  very  happy  to  have  the 
gentleman  explain  that  principle  of  division. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  discussing  another  principle  now.  For 
my  views  on  that  point  I  refer  him  to  the  former  debate.  I  am 
not  surprised  that  the  gentleman  should  wish  to  divert  attention, 
or  should  take  very  little  interest  in  this  debate,  on  the  line  I 
was  pursuing,  for  I  think  it  was  he  who,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  session  of  the  last  Congress,  spoke  with  such  exulting  feel 
ings  of  what  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had  done  with  its  advo 
cates  at  the  North,  and  made  such  great  boasts  of  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  the  enemies  of  the  principles  of  that  bill.  Now  he 
comes  into  the  House  at  this  session,  after  the  issue  has  been 
made  and  decided  against  him,  and  commences  the  debate  him 
self;  but  when  he  sees  he  can  make  nothing  out  of  it  when  con 
fined  to  the  merits  of  the  question  raised  by  himself,  he  is  for 
going  off  on  something  else.  Why,  sir,  he  said  two  years  ago 
(while  admitting  that  he  was  no  prophet,  nor  the  son  of  a  pro 
phet,  yet  seeming  to  be  moved  b_y  the  inspiration  of  prophes}T) 
that  there  never  would  be  another  Kansas  majorit}'  on  this 
floor.  He  and  his  friends  appealed  to  the  people.  Well,  the 
people  have  decided  against  them.  And  now  he  comes  to  this 
House  and  re-opens  the  question,  and  I  am  not  surprised,  as 
the  debate  progresses,  he  should  desire  to  get  on  other  points. 
I  think  the  position  of  the  gentleman,  in  re-opening  a  debate  on 
the  Kansas  question  this  session,  upon  the  whole,  is  very  much 
like  that  of  a  man  I  once  heard  of — a  lawyer  in  court.  After  the 
decision  of  the  judge,  he  commenced  speaking  again  ;  the  judge 
told  him  he  did  not  allow  any  arguing  of  a  question  in  his  court 
after  a  case  was  decided.  The  lawyer  said,  "  Sir,  I  was  not 
arguing  the  case ;  I  was  only  cursing  the  decision,"  [laughter.] 
37 


578         SPEECH    ON   THE    PKESIDENTIAL   ELECTION,    ETC. 

I  think  the  object  of  the  gentleman,  [Mr.  CAMPBELL,]  now,  in  re 
opening  this  debate,  was  not  a  wish  to  re-argue  the  question  so 
much  as  to  indulge  in  a  little  cursing  of  the  decision  which  has 
been  against  him. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  Ohio.  I  suppose  that  in  that  case,  as  in 
this,  there  had  been  false  testimony.  One  set  of  witnesses  came 
and  swore  on  one  side  of  the  line  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
meant  nothing  ;  and  another  swore  on  another  side  that  it  meant 
something ;  and  but  for  them  I  should  have  returned  here  with 
the  same  exultant  feelings  with  which  I  came  at  the  opening  of 
this  Congress. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  gentleman  hUn- 
self  was  one  of  the  witnesses,  [laughter,]  and  it  seems  that  people 
of  his  own  section  decided  against  the  testimony.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said  before,  my  opinion  is,  that  there 
never  was  an  issue  so  fairly  made  and  so  fairly  presented  to  the 
American  people  by  both  parties,  North  and  South,  as  was  the 
issue  on  this  Kansas  bill  at  the  late  election — an  election  which 
excited  the  feelings  and  aroused  the  popular  interests  to  an  unu 
sual  degree,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  in  countries  on  other 
continents.  I  think  it  probable  that  there  were  some  on  both 
sides  of  the  question  and  on  both  sides  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line,  who  attempted  to  misrepresent  the  principles  of  this  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  It  is  possible  that  there  were  some  of  those  de 
fending  it  on  one  side  of  the  line  who  said  that  the  policy  was  to 
make  Kansas  a  free  State,  and  some  of  those  assailing  it  on  the 
other  side  who  said  that  it  was  worse  for  the  South  than  the 
"  Wilmot  proviso  itself."  This  is  possible,  but  those  who  made 
such  attempts  were  well  understood.  They  deceived  nobody. 
Such  men  figure  in  all  political  contests,  but  they  mislead  very 
few :  the  truth  makes  its  way  over  them. 

But  I  suspect  that  most  of  what  has  been  called  dodging  the 
issues  in  the  late  canvass,  has  been  only  a  denying  that  the  issues 
were  such  as  they  were  represented  to  be  by  some  of  the  opposite 
party.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr. 
CAMPBELL,]  or  some  of  those  who  acted  with  him  at  the  North, 
said  in  their  speeches  about  the  Kansas  bill,  that  its  object  was 
to  make  Kansas  a  slave  State  ;  and  that  one  of  the  issues  before 
the  American  people  was,  whether  Kansas  should  be  a  free  State, 
or  a  slave  State.  The  friends  of  freedom,  or  every  man  who  was 
not  himself  in  favor  of  slavery,  it  may  be,  was  called  on  to  vote 
for  the  "  Free-Soil,"  "  Free  Kansas,"  and  Fremont  ticket.  If  this 
be  so,  I  think  it  very  possible,  and  even  highly  probable,  that 
the  friends  and  defenders  of  the  Kansas  bill  at  the  North,  said 
this  was  not  the  issue — that  the  object  of  the  bill  was  not  to  make 
Kansas  either  a  free  State,  or  a  slave  State,  but  to  leave  that 
matter  to  the  people  of  Kansas  to  settle  for  themselves,  at  the 
proper  time,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
that  she  might  be  admitted  as  a  slave  State,  or  a  free  State,  as 


SPEECH    ON    THE    PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION,    ETC.          579 

her  people  may  determine  for  themselves  at  the  proper  time. 
Some  may  have  said  the  proper  time  was  in  their  territorial 
legislature ;  others,  when  they  come  to  form  a  State  constitution  , 
buUall  were  agreed  that  it  was  to  be  done  by  the  people  of  Kansas, 
at  the  proper  time  ;  and  if  there  was  any  difficulty  as  to  the 
proper  time,  that  was  a  judicial  question  arising  under  the  con 
stitution,  which  could  only  be  settled  by  the  courts.  All  were 
agreed  that  it  was  to  be  settled  by  those  whom  it  concerned,  and 
not  by  Congress,  or  the  people  of  the  United  States  outside  of 
Kansas,  who  had  no  business  to  meddle  with  it. 

This  class  of  men,  I  think  it  probable,  said  that  the  true  issue 
on  this  point  was  to  let  the  people  of  Kansas  take  care  of  their 
own  interests  and  business,  and  to  let  other  people  attend  to 
theirs  ;  that  whether  slavery  was  right  or  wrong,  Congress  had  no 
rightful  authority  to  interfere  against  it,  either  in  the  States  or 
territories.  This,  I  think  it  very  probable,  was  said  by  many. 
This  is  what  has  been  called  dodging  the  issue.  But  I  should 
have  said  the  same  thing  if  I  had  been  there.  The  object  of  the 
bill  was  not  to  make  Kansas  either  a  slave  State  or  free  State ; 
but  just,  what  I  have  stated.  Its  passage  was  not  a  triumph  of 
the  South  over  the  North,  further  than  a  removal  of  an  unjust  dis 
crimination  against  her  people,  and  a  restoration  of  her  constitu 
tional  equality,  may  be  considered  a  triumph.  To  this  extent  it 
was  a  triumph  ;  but  no  sectional  triumph.  It  was  a  triumph  of 
the  constitution.  It  was  a  triumph  that  enhanced  the  value  of 
the  Union  in  the  estimation  of  the  people  of  the  South.  The.  re 
striction  of  1820  had  been  for  many  years  in  the  body-politic  as 
"  a  thorn  in  the  flesh,"  producing  irritation  at  every  touch.  On 
the  principles  upon  which  it  was  adopted,  (reluctantly  accepted 
as  an  alternative  at  the  time  by  them,)  the  South  would  have 
been,  and  was,  willing  to  acquiesce  in  and  adhere  to  it  in  1850. 
But  it  was  then  repudiated,  again  and  again,  by  the  North,  as 
was  shown  by  me  in  this  House  on  a  former  occasion.  The  idea 
of  its  having  been  a  sacred  compact,  or  being  in  any  way  binding, 
was  scouted  at  and  ridiculed  by  those  who  have  raised  such  a 
clamor  on  that  score  since.  This  thorn  was  removed  in  1850. 
The  whole  country  seemed  to  be  relieved  by  it.  It  would  have 
been  completely  relieved  by  it,  but  for  the  late  attempt  to  thrust 
back  this  thorn.  This  attempt  has  been  signally  rebuked.  And 
may  we  not  now  look  to  the  future  with  hopes — well  grounded 
hopes — of  permanent  repose  ?  Repose  is  what  we  want.  With 
the  principle  now  established,  that  each  State  and  separate  polit 
ical  community  in  our  complicated  system  is  to  attend  to  its  own 
affairs,  without  meddling  with  those  of  their  neighbors,  and  that 
the  general  government  is  to  give  its  care  and  attention  only  to 
such  matters  as  are  committed  to  its  charge,  relating  to  the  gen 
eral  welfare,  peace,  and  harmony  of  the  whole,  what  is  there  to 
darken  or  obscure  the  prospect  of  a  great  and  prosperous  career 
before  us  ?  Men  on  all  sides  speak  of  the  Union  and  its  preserva- 


580  SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA. 

tion  as  objects  of  their  desire ;  and  some  speak  of  its  dissolution 
as  impossible — an  event  that  will  not  be  allowed  under  any  cir 
cumstances.  To  such  let  me  say,  that  this  Union  can  only  be 
preserved  by  conforming  to  the  laws  of  its  existence.  When 
these  laws  are  violated,  like  all  other  organisms,  either  political 
or  physical,  vegetable  or  animal,  dissolution  will  be  inevitable. 
The  laws  of  this  political  organism — the  union  of  these  States — 
are  well  defined  in  the  constitution.  From  this  springs  our  life 
as  a  people.  If  these  be  violated,  political  death  must  ensue.  The 
Union  can  never  be  preserved  by  force,  or  by  one  section  attempt 
ing  to  rule  the  other. 

The  principle  on  this  sectional  controversy,  established  in  1850, 
carried  out  in  1854,  and  affirmed  by  the  people  in  1856, 1  consider, 
Mr.  Speaker,  as  worth  the  Union  itself,  much  as  I  am  devoted  to 
it,  so  long  as  it  is  devoted  to  the  objects  for  which  it  was  formed. 
And  in  devotion  to  it,  so  long  as  these  objects  are  aimed  at,  I 
yield  to  no  one.  To  maintain  its  integrity — to  promote  its  ad 
vancement,  development,  growth,  power,  and  renown,  in  accom 
plishing  those  objects,  is  my  most  earnest  wish  and  desire.  To 
aid  in  doing  this  is  my  highest  ambition.  These  are  the  impulses 
of  that  patriotism  with  which  I  am  imbued  ;  and  with  me — 

"  All  thoughts,  all  passions,  all  delights, 

Whatever  stirs  this  mortal  frame, 
All  are  but  ministers  of  love 
To  feed  this  sacred  flame. 

But  the  constitutional  rights  and  equality  of  the  States  must 
be  preserved. 


SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA  AND 
ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

MAY  11,  1858. 

The  House  having  under  consideration  the  bill  for  the  sadmision  of  the 
State  of  Minnesota  into  the  Union,  Mr.  STEPHENS  said : 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  My  time  will  not  allow  me  to  answer  all  the 
objections  that  have  been  made  to  the  admission  of  Minnesota. 
I  do  not  think  it  necessary,  however,  to  consume  time,  or  to  ex 
haust  my  feeble  strength  in  answering  all  the  objections  that 
have  been  raised.  Many  of  them  are  of  small  import,  while  some 
of  them  are  grave,  important,  and  go  to  the  very  foundation  prin 
ciples  of  our  government.  This  latter  class  of  objections  are  not 
new ;  they  are  not  novel ;  they  involve  principles  coeval  with  our 
institutions.  In  reply  to  them,  I  must  be  brief  in  the  forty  min 
utes  allotted  to  me.  They  involve  two  inquiries.  The  first  ques- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA.  581 

tion  in  reference  to  them  is,  whether  they  be  well  taken  in  fact ; 
and  the  second  is,  whether,  if  well  founded,  they  amount,  in  them 
selves,  to  a  good  and  valid  ground  for  the  rejection  of  a  State. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  G-ARNETT]  objects,  because 
of  the  State  boundaries  violating  the  stipulation  between  Virginia 
and  the  United  States  in  the  cession  of  the  northwest  territory: 
In  point  of  fact,  I  do  not  consider  that  objection  well  taken ;  but 
if  it  were  good,  it  ought  to  have  been  taken  when  the  enabling 
act  was  passed  last  Congress,  fixing  the  boundaries  of  Minnesota. 
That  portion  of  the  old  northwestern  territory,  now  included  in 
the  State  of  Minnesota,  was  included  then,  and  the  objection 
should  have  been  taken  then,  if  at  all.  There  is,  however,  but  a 
small  portion  of  the  old  cession  of  Virginia  included  in  this  State. 
Twenty-odd  thousand  square  miles  of  that  cession,  it  is  true,  have 
been  added  to  the  ninety-odd  thousand  square  miles  constituting 
the  main  body  of  Minnesota.  This  was  for  convenience.  Only 
a  small  portion,  therefore,  of  the  original  Virginia  cession  has 
been  taken  off  and  added  to  the  large  extent  of  country  that 
makes  the  State  of  Minnesota,  for  the  public  convenience.  There 
has  been  no  injury  resulting  anywhere,  and  no  breach  of  faith,  in 
my  judgment. 

It  was  stated,  also,  that  the  number  of  delegates  who  formed 
the  State  constitution  was  larger  than  that  ordered  in  the  enabling 
act.  That  objection  has  been  well  answered  by  the  gentleman's 
colleague  [Mr.  JENKINS].  The  act  of  Congress  provided  that  as 
many  delegates  should  be  chosen  as  there  were  representatives 
in  the  territorial  legislature.  Well,  sir,  the  people  of  Minnesota 
construed  that  to  embrace  their  senators  or  councilmen  as  well 
as  representatives  in  the  lower  House.  The  bill  admitted  of  a 
doubt.  I  do  not  conceive  that  that  objection  has  much  force  in  it. 

But  I  must  pass  on  to  notice  the  other  objections  of  a  graver 
character.  It  was  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  SHER 
MAN],  who  opened  this  debate,  and  has  been  repeated  by  several 
other  gentlemen,  that  the  constitution  of  Minnesota  is  violative 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States — in  this,  that  it  permits 
aliens  to  vote,  or  other  than  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote, 
in  State  elections. 

Mr.  Speaker,  before  arguing  the  point  whether  this  clause  of 
the  constitution  of  Minnesota  does  or  does  not  violate  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  let  me  ask,  right  here,  this  ques 
tion  :  suppose  it  be  true  that  that  feature  of  their  constitution 
does  violate  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  is  incon 
sistent  with  it,  is  that  a  good  ground  for  her  rejection  ?  I  put  it 
strongly  and  broadly  in  the  forefront  of  the  argument — suppose 
that  be  conceded,  is  it  a  legitimate  ground  of  objection  to  the 
admission  of  a  State  that  a  provision  of  its  constitution  is  incon 
sistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  I  say,  sir, 
not.  I  say  it  as  a  State-rights  man,  advocating  the  principles  of 
the  State-rights  school.  We  can  only  look  into  the  constitution  of 


582  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA.     , 

a  new  State  applying  for  admission,  to  see  that  it  is  republican  in 
form,  and  that  it  legally  and  fairly  expresses  the  will  of  the 
people.  If  there  be  conflicts,  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  points  out  how  those  conflicts  are  to  be  settled.  After 
coming  into  the  Union,  such  clause,  if  it  be  in,  will,  of  course, 
have  to  yield  to  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Sir,  the  case  of 
Minnesota,  if  this  be  true  of  her  constitution,  will  not  be  a  sin 
gular  one. 

The  constitution  of  Illinois  declares  that  no  man  shall  be 
eligible  to  a  Federal  office  who  has  been  elected  to  and  has  ac 
cepted  a  judge  ship  in  that  State  within  two  years  after  the  expira 
tion  of  the  term  for  which  he  accepted  it.  A  senator  from  that 
State,  now  holding  a  seat  in  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol,  [Mr. 
TRUMBULL,]  was  elected  to  that  body  during  the  term  of  a  judge- 
ship  of  a  State  court,  which  he  had  been  elected  to,  and  had 
accepted.  In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  question  was 
raised  as  to  his  eligibility,  and  as  to  whether  the  constitution  of 
Illinois  could,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  impose 
such  a  qualification ;  in  other  words,  whether  the  qualifications 
for  senators,  set  forth  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
were  not  absolute  and  binding,  and  did  not  supersede  the  pro 
vision  of  the  constitution  of  Illinois.  The  Senate  so  determined, 
and  that  senator  now  holds  his  seat,  in  the  face,  in  the  teeth,  and 
against  that  constitutional  provision  of  his  own  State. 

Whether  that  decision  of  the  United  States  Senate  was  right 
or  wrong,  I  will  not  now  stop  to  inquire,  or  to  express  an  opinion. 

I  cannot  take  up  my  time  in  citing  other  analogous  cases. 
Many  instances  might  be  adduced  from  decisions  of  the  courts. 
It  is  enough  for  me  to  affirm  that  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  declares  that  "  this  constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in 
every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing  in  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  I  say, 
therefore,  in  answer  to  all  that  has  been  said  in  reference  to  the 
constitution  of  Minnesota  being  in  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  that,  even  conceding  the  point  for  argu 
ment's  sake  (which  I  do  not  concede  in  fact),  this  would  not  be  a 
just  and  valid  ground  on  which  to  reject  her  admission.  It  is  a 
question  which  can  be  properly  decided  when  it  arises,  if  ever,  by 
the  proper  judicial  tribunal  before  which  it  may  arise.  We,  on 
the  question  of  admission,  can  only  look  into  a  constitution  to 
see  that  it  is  republican  in  form. 

Mr.  TRIPPE.  I  desire  to  ask  my  colleague  whether  he  concurs 
in  the  Green  amendment  to  the  Kansas  bill,  which  asserts  the 
right  of  Congress  to  inquire  into  the  constitution  of  any  State 
applying  for  admission  into  the  Union,  in  order  to  see  whether  it 
is  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ? 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA.  583 

• 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  My  time  is  short,  and  I  want  to  argue  other 
questions ;  but  I  will  say  to  my  colleague,  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  original  Green  amendment  which  did  not  meet  my  cordial 
and  hearty  approval.  There  was  nothing  in  it  which  inquired 
into  a  constitution.  It  was  altogether  negative  in  its  character. 

Mr.  TRIPPE.  If  my  colleague  will  allow  me,  I  think  that  right 
was  directly  asserted  in  the  Green  amendment. 

The  SPEAKER.  The  Chair  desires  to  suggest  that  the  constitu 
tion  of  Kansas  is  not  before  the  House. 

Mr.  TRIPPE.  The  same  principle  involved  in  the  amendment 
to  the  Kansas  bill,  to  which  I  have  referred,  is  contained  in  this 
bill. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  cannot  discuss  that  question  now.  There 
were  words  added  to  the  original  Green  amendment  that  I  con 
sidered  liable  to  objection;  but,  being  negative,  were  not  in 
superable  with  me.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  lay  down  this  pro 
position,  that  there  is  nothing,  in  my  judgment,  in  the  constitu 
tion  of  Minnesota,  inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  SHERMAN,]  who  led  off  in  this 
debate,  argued  that  there  was  no  clause  in  the  constitution  of 
Minnesota  by  which  the  present  elected  members  of  the  legisla 
ture  could  be  prevented  from  holding  for  life.  Well,  sir,  suppose 
the  gentleman  was  correct — but  I  do  not  concede  the  fact :  the 
constitution  would  not  therefore  be  anti-republican.  I  would  not 
vote  for  such  a  constitution  if  I  were  there.  But,  sir,  what  con 
stitutes  a  republican  form  of  government  ?  It  is,  as  I  understand 
it,  a  division  of  the  three  great  branches  of  government — the 
executive,  the  judicial,  and  the  law-making  powers.  That  division 
is  certainly  in  this  constitution.  Several  of  the  States  have  made 
the  judiciary  elective,  or  holding  office  for  life.  Does  that  make 
their  constitution  anti-republican  ?  The  constitution  of  the 
United  States  does  this.  If  the  judiciary  can  hold  office  for 
life,  why  not  the  executive  ?  and  why  may  not  representatives  as 
well,  if  the  people  see  fit  to  make  such  a  constitution  ?  It  would 
not  cease  to  be  republican  in  consequence.  It  might  and  would 
be,  in  my  judgment,  a  very  bad  constitution;  but  I  say  that  of 
that  we  cannot  rightfully  judge. 

I  now  come  to  the  main  question  in  this  debate — the  alien 
suffrage  clause,  as  it  is  called,  in  this  constitution.  I  have  said 
that  it  was  no  new  question.  It  is  a  grave  and  important  one, 
but  it  is  coeval  with  the  government.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  there  was 
any  subject  which  was  seriously  watched  and  guarded,  in  the  for 
mation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  above  all  others, 
it  was  that  the  federal  government  should  not  touch  the  right  of 
suffrage  in  the  States.  The  question  of  who  should  vote  in  the 
several  States  was  left  for  each  State  to  settle  for  itself.  And  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  say  for  myself  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  doctrine  of  State  rights  that  I  would  defend  and  stand  by 


584  SPEECH    ON    THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA. 

• 

longer,  and  fight  for  harder,  than  that  which  denies  the  right  of 
the  federal  government,  by  its  encroachments,  to  interfere  with 
the  right  of  suffrage  in  my  State.  The  ballot-box — that  is  what 
each  State  must  guard  and  protect  for  itself ;  that  is  what  the 
people  of  the  several  States  never  delegated  to  this  government, 
and  of  course  it  was  expressly,  under  the  constitution,  reserved 
to  the  people  of  the  States.  Upon  the  subject  of  alien  suffrage, 
about  which  we  have  heard  so  much  lately,  I  wish  in  this  connec 
tion  to  give  a  brief  history.  I  state  to  this  House  that  the  prin 
ciple  was  recognized  by  the  ordinance  of  1181,  which  was  before 
the  government  was  formed. 

It  was  recognized  by  the  act  of  1th  August,  1789,  soon  after 
the  government  was  formed,  one  of  the  first  acts  signed  by  Wash 
ington — an  act  making  provisions  for  carrying  out  that  ordinance. 
It  was  recognized  in  the  territory  South  in  the  cession  by  North 
Carolina,  on  the  2d  April,  1190. 

It  was  again  recognized  in  the  bill  creating  a  government  for  the 
territory  of  Tennessee,  on  the  26th  May,  1190. 

It  was  recognized  in  the  act  of  settling  the  limits  of  the  State 
of  Georgia,  and  creating  the  Mississippi  territory,  on  the  1th 
April,  1198. 

It  was  recognized  in  a  supplemental  act  to  the  last,  on  the  10th 
May,  1800. 

It  was  recognized  in  the  division  of  Indiana  territory,  on  the 
3d  February,  1809. 

It  was  recognized  in  an  act  for  Illinois  territory,  on  the  20th 
May,  1812. 

It  was  recognized  in  the  act  organizing  the  Michigan  territorial 
government :  the  date  of  this  I  do  not  recollect. 

But  I  cannot  take  up  my  time  by  referring  to  other  instances 
in  their  order.  I  know  that  in  some  cases  voting  in  the  territo 
ries  was  restricted  to  citizens.  This  was  the  case  in  the  territo 
ries  of  Missouri,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Utah,  and  New  Mexico ;  while 
alien  suffrage  was  again  recognized,  in  express  terms,  in  the  ter 
ritories  of  Oregon,  Minnesota,  Washington,  Kansas,  and  Ne 
braska. 

Of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  who,  in  some  form  or 
other,  gave  the  principle  their  sanction  either  in  the  territories  or 
States,  may  be  mentioned  Washington,  the  elder  Adams,  Jeffer 
son,  Madison,  Jackson,  Polk,  Fillmore,  and  Pierce. 

Reference,  sir,  has  been  made  in  this  debate  to  a  speech  made 
by  Mr.  Calhoun  on  this  subject,  in  the  Senate,  in  1836,  on  the 
act  providing  for  the  admission  of  Michigan,  upon  which  com 
ments  have  been  made  by  several  gentlemen.  The  views  of  that 
distinguished  statesman  have  been  presented  as  authority  on 
their  side.  I  have  simply  this  to  say  about  that  speech :  I  can 
not  find  it  in  the  Globe.  I  cannot  find  it  in  the  debates  of  the 
day. 

Mr.  RICAUD.  I  think;  it  is  in  his  published  speeches. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION    OF    MINNESOTA.  585 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  have  seen  it  in  his  published  works,  but 
I  cannot  find  it  in  the  published  reports  of  Congress.  It  is 
stated  to  have  been  made  in  1836,  on  the  bill  authorizing 
Michigan  to  form  a  constitution.  Michigan  was  admitted  with 
alien  suffrage  in  her  constitution,  on  the  3d  March,  1837;  and 
Mr.  Calhoun  does  not  appear  to  have  made  any  objection  to  her 
admission  on  that  ground.  I  find  speeches  made  by  him  upon 
that  bill,  but  none  objecting  to  this  clause.  I  find  he  oifered  a 
substitute  for  the  bill  admitting  Michigan  without  objection  to 
the  alien  suffrage  clause  in  her  constitution.  Still,  it  is  stated 
that  this  speech  of  his  was  made  the  year  before,  on  the  occasion 
referred  to,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  questioning  it. 
That  was  on  Congress  conferring  the  right.  He  did  not  raise 
any  objection  to  the  admission  of  the  State  as  far  as  I  can  find, 
because  of  alien  suffrage  being  allowed  in  her  constitution. 

Again:  on  the  26th  of  July,  1848,  the  Clayton  compromise  bill 
for  the  organization  of  certain  territorial  governments  passed  the 
Senate.  The  fifth  section  of  the  act  provides — 

"  That  every  free  white  male  inhabitant,  above  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years,  who  shall  have  been  a  resident  of  said  territory  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  this  act,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  first  election,  and  shall 
be  eligible  to  any  office  in  said  territory ;  but  the  qualification  of  voters, 
and  of  holding  office,  at  all  subsequent  elections,  shall  be  such  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  :  Provided,  That  the  right  of 
suffrage,  and  of  holding  office,  shall  be  exercised  only  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  arid  those  who  shall  have  declared  on  oath  their  intention 
to  become  such,  and  shall  have  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

On  the  engrossment  of  this  bill,  the  vote  was — 

"  YEAS — Messrs.  Atchison,  Atherton,  Benton,  Berrien,  Borland,  Breese, 
Bright,  Butler,  Calhoun,  Clayton,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dickinson,  Doug 
las,  Downs,  Foote,  Hannegan,  Houston,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Maryland, 
Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Johnson  of  Georgia,  King,  Lewis,  Mangum,  Mason, 
Phelps,  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Spruance,  Sturgeon,  Turney,  Westcott,  and 
Yulee— 33. 

"NAYS — Messrs.  Allen,  Badger,  Baldwin,  Bell,  Bradbury,  Clark,  Cor- 
win,  Davis  of  Massachusetts.  Dayton,  Dix,  Dodge,  Felch,  Fitzgerald, 
Greene,  Hale,  Hamlin,  Metcaii'e,  Miller,  Niles,  Underwood,  Upham,  and 
Walker— 22." 

Mr.  Calhoun  was' on  the  committee  which  reported  this  pro 
vision,  and  he  does  not  appear  as  having  objected  to  it.  And 
though  he  may  have  made  that  speech  in  1836,  yet  it  is  equally 
certain  and  true  that  twelve  years  afterward  he  voted  for  the 
very  principle  he  had  previously  opposed.  His  vote  for  the 
principle  in  1848,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  his 
speech  against  it  in  1836.  This  is,  therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  no  new 
question. 

The  same  principle,  as  I  have  said,  was  incorporated  in  the 
same  words,  I  think,  in  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Washing 
ton  territory  in  1853,  and  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  1854. 


SPEECH   ON  THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA. 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  MAYNARD]  put  this  ques 
tion  to  some  gentleman  the  other  day :  whether,  if  this  bill  should 
pass,  Minnesota  might  not  confer  the  right  of  voting  upon  an 
alien  enemy  ?  By  no  means,  sir ;  the  person  of  foreign  birth,  who 
is  entitled  to  vote  under  this  constitution,  has  first  to  purge  him 
self  of  his  allegiance  to  other'powers.  He  must  have  declared  his 
intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  sworn  to 
support  the  constitution  of  the  same.  This  is  the  condition 
precedent.  By  no  possibility,  therefore,  could  an  alien  enemy 
legally  vote  in  Minnesota. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  been  read  and  commented  on  by  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland,  [Mr.  DAVIS,]  who  led  off  in  this  discussion,  and 
whose  speech  I  listened  to  with  a  great  deal  of  interest — an  argu 
ment  as  well  got  up  and  made  on  that  side  of  the  question  as  I 
think  it  possible  for  ingenuity,  ability,  and  talent,  united  with 
eloquence,  to  present.  He  rested  his  argument  mainly  on  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  where 
Judge  Taney  says  that  the  words  "people  of  the  United  States," 
in  the  constitution,  are  synonymous  with  "  citizens."  After 
reading  that  part  of  the  decision,  the  gentleman  quoted  an  article 
in  the  constitution  which  says  that  "  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  shall  be  composed  of  members  chosen  every  second  }^ear  by 
the  people  of  the  several  States ;"  and  his  argument  was,  that  as 
the  Supreme  Court  had  defined  that  the  word  "  people"  was 
synonymous,  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to 
"citizens,"  therefore  members  of  this  House  could  be  elected  by 
none  but  "citizens  of  the  United  States."  That  was  the  gentle 
man's  argument ;  but  I  am  far  from  concurring  with  him  in  it. 
His  argument  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  clause  quoted,  intended  to  define  the 
class  of  voters  in  the  several  States,  and  to  limit  suffrage.  I 
think  that  it  will  take  me  but  a  moment,  by  recurring  to  that 
clause  of  the  constitution  and  comparing  it  with  others,  to  show 
that  the  object  of  that  clause  was  simply  to  point  out  the  mode 
of  the  election  of  the  members  of  this  House  in  contradistinction 
from  the  mode  of  electing  senators,  and  not  the  class  of  voters. 
The  House  was  to  be  elected  by  the  people  by  a  popular  vote,  by 
the  masses ;  while  the  Senate  was  to  be  elected  by  the  State 
legislature.  That  is  all  that  is  meant  in  that  clause.  The 
constitution  is  in  these  words : 

"  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members  chosen 
every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the  several  States," — 

There  the  gentleman  stopped.     What  follows  ? 

— "  and  the  electors  in  each  State  shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite 
for  electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legislature." 

There,  coupled  with  what  the  gentleman  read,  is  the  right 
which  I  say  that  the  people  insisted  upon  beyond  all  others — 


SPEECH   ON  THE   ADMISSION   OF   MINNESOTA.  587 

the  reserved  right  that  the  general  government  should  never 
interfere  with  suffrage  in  the  States ;  not  even  for  members  of 
this  House.  Immediately  after  the  words  he  read,  sir,  without  a 
semicolon  separating  them,  is  the  express  declaration  that  the 
States  shall  fix  the  qualification  of  electors  or  voters.  Who  shall 
say  to  each  State  in  this  particular,"thus  far  mayest  thou  go,  and 
no  further  ?  Who  shall  say  to  the  sovereignties  where  they  shall 
stop  ?  The  States,  over  this  subject,  have  never  parted  with  any 
of  their  sovereignty.  It  is  their  right,  therefore,  to  fix  the  qualifica 
tions  of  voters  unrestrictedly  and  absolutely.  If  they  say  an  alien 
may  vote,  it  is  their  right  to  do  so. 

The  other  clause  of  the  constitution  to  which  I  referred,  show 
ing  what  was  meant  in  the  first  part  of  the  one  read  By  the 
gentleman,  is  in  these  words  : 

"  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two  senators 
from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof." 

The  first  clause  the  gentleman  read  the  other  day  refers  simply, 
as  it  clearly  appears,  to  the  manner  of  the  election,  the  mode  of 
the  election,  the  constituency  of  those  elected — to  distinguish 
them  from  the  constituency  of  the  senators.  The  one  was  to  be 
the  people,  contra-distinguished  from  the  legislatures  of  the 
States ;  this  was  one  of  the  points  of  difficulty  in  forming  the 
Federal  constitution.  It  was  finally  determined  that  the  House 
should  represent  the  people  and  the  Senate  should  represent  the 
States. 

I  will  refer  briefly  to  the  same  authority  on  that  point.  I  read 
from  Yates's  minutes  of  the  debates  in  the  Federal  convention, 
the  fourth  resolve : 

"That  the  members  of  the  first  branch  of  the  national  legislature  ought 
to  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the  several  States  was  opposed  ;  and,  strange 
to  tell,  by  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  who  supposed  they  ought  to 
be  chosen  by  the  legislatures  ;  and  Virginia  supported  the  resolve,  alleg 
ing  that  this  ought  to.be  the  democratic  branch  of  the  government,  and, 
as  such,  immediately  vested  in  the  people." 

Again,  Mr.  Pinckney  moved : 

'That  the  members  of  the  first  branch  (that  is,  this  House)  be  ap 
pointed  in  such  manner  as  the  several  State  legislatures  shall  direct." 

Mr.  Madison  said : 
"  I  oppose  the  motion." 
Mr.  Mason  said : 

"  I  am  for  preserving  inviolably  the  democratic  branch  of  the  govern 
ment.  True,  we  have  found  inconveniences  from  pure  democracies ;  but 
if  we  mean  to  preserve  peace  and  real  freedom,  they  must  necessarily 
become  a  component  part  of  a  national  government.  Change  this  neces 
sary  principle,  and  if  the  government  proceeds  to  taxation,  the  States  will 
orpose  your  power." 

The  idea  that  prevailed  at  the  formation  of  our  constitution 


588  SPEECH    ON   THE    ADMISSION    OF    MINNESOTA. 

was,  that  representation  and  taxation  should  go  together.  It  was 
mainly  upon  that  ground  that. the  men  of  that  day  went  to  the 
war  with  the  mother  country ;  it  was  because  the  colonies  were 
taxed  and  not  allowed  representation  ;  and  if  you  trace  the  his 
tory  of  this  government  down,  you  will  find  this  great  American 
idea  running  throughout — that  taxation  and  representation  should 
go  together.  Whoever  pays  taxes  should  vote — that  is  the  idea. 

Great  confusion  seems  to  exist  in  the  minds  of  gentlemen  from 
the  association  of  the  words  citizen  and  suffrage.  Some  seem  to 
think  that  rights  of  citizenship  and  rights  of  suffrage  necessarily 
go  together ;  that  one  is  dependent  upon  the  other.  There  never 
was  a  greater  mistake.  Suffrage,  or  the  right  to  vote,  is  the  crea 
ture  of  law.  There  are  citizens  in  every  State  of  this  Union,  I 
doubt  not,  who  are  not  entitled  to  vote.  So,  in  several  of  the 
States  there  are  persons  who  by  law  are  entitled  to  vote,  though 
they  be  not  citizens.  If  there  be  citizens  who  cannot  vote,  why 
may  there  not  be  individuals,  who  are  not  citizens,  who  may 
nevertheless  be  allowed  to  vote,  if  the  sovereign  will  of  the  State 
shall  so  determine  ?  In  all  the  States  nearly  there  are  other 
qualifications  for  voting,  even  with  the  native  born,  besides  citi 
zenship.  Residence  for  a  certain  length  of  time.  Virginia,  for 
instance,  requires  of  all  citizens  of  other  States,  native  born  citi 
zens  of  Maryland  or  North  Carolina,  a  certain  term  of  residence. 
They  shall  not  vote  in  Virginia  unless  they  have  been  there  twelve 
months.  In  Alabama,  I  think,  the  provision  is  the  same. 

Why,  sir,  in  my  own  State,  where  we  have  universal  suffrage, 
as  it  is  called,  no  man  can  vote  unless  he  has  paid  his  taxes,  and 
resided  in  the  county  six  months.  There  are  thousands  of  citi 
zens  in  Georgia,  and  I  suppose  in  every  other  State,  who  are  not 
entitled  to  the  right  of  suffrage  under  our  constitution  and  laws. 
Citizenship  and  suffrage  by  no  means  go  together  in  all  cases. 
My  time  will  not  allow  me  to  enlarge  on  that  idea.  I  will  only 
refer  briefly  again  to  what  was  said  in  the  Federal  convention  on 
the  subject  of  the  States  retaining  the  control  over  the  subject  of 
suffrage,  showing  how  vigilantly  this  was  watched  and  guarded 
by  the  State-rights  men.  Gouverneur  Morris  had  proposed  to 
restrain  the  right  of  suffrage  to  freeholders.  This  gave  rise  to  a 
long  debate.  Mr.  Ellsworth  said  : 

"The  qualification  of  electors  stood  on  the  most  proper  footing.  The 
right  of  suffrage  was  a  tender  point,  and  strongly  guarded  by  most  of  the 
State  constitutions.  The  people  will  not  readily  subscribe  to  the  national 
constitution  if  it  should  subject  them  to  be  disfranchised.  The  States  are 
the  best  judges  of  the  circumstances  and  temper  of  their  own  people." 

Again  he  says,  (I  read  from  the  Madison  Papers  :) 

"  Ought  not  every  man  who  pays  a  tax  to  vote  for  the  representative 

who  is  to  levy  and  dispose  of  his  money  ?     Taxation  and  representation 

ought  to  go  together." 

I  barely  refer  to  this  to  show  that  I  am  sustained  in  my  view 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION    OF    MINNESOTA.  589 

by  the  highest  authority.  This  subject  of  the  qualification  of 
electors,  and  who  should  determine  it,  was  mooted  at  the  settle 
ment  of  the  government ;  and  it  was  left  to  the  State  legislatures, 
under  State  constitutions. 

Now,  sir,  a  few  moments  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  Judge  Taney,  in  my  judgment,  fully  con 
firms  every  thing  I  have  said.  He  says  : 

"The  words  'people  of  the  United  States'  and  'citizens,'  are  synony 
mous  terms,  and  mean  the  same  thing.  They  both  describe  the  political 
body  who,  according  to  our  republican  institutions,  form  the  sovereignty, 
and  who  hold  the  power  and  conduct  the  government  through  their  repre 
sentatives.  They  are  what  are  familiarly  called  the  sovereign  people ;  arid 
every  citizen  is  one  of  this  people,  and  a  constituent  member  of  this 
sovereignty.  The  question  before  us  is,  whether  the  class  of  persons 
described  in  the  plea  in  abatement  [Dred  Scott  was  a  negro]  composed  a 
portion  of  this  people,  and  are  constituent  members  of  this  sovereignty. 
We  think  they  are  not ;  and  were  not  intended  to  be  included  under  the 
word  '  citizens'  in  the  constitution,  and  can  therefore  claim  none  of  the 
rights  and  privileges  which  that  instrument  provides  for,  and  secures  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States." 

It  was  the  first  words  of  this  clause  of  the  decision  the  gentle 
man  from  Maryland  relied  on,  but  he  did  not  pursue  the  argu 
ment  far  enough. 

The  object  of  the  chief  justice  was  to  show  that  persons  of  the 
African  race,  descended  from  those  who  were  bought  and  sold  as 
slaves,  were  not  in  the  original  body-politic,  and  could  not,  by 
State  laws,  be  incorporated  into  that  body-politic.  But  now  mark 
what  immediately  follows  that  part  of  his  decision : 

"  In  discussing  this  question,  we  must  not  confound  the  rights  of  citi 
zenship  which  a  State  may  confer  within  its  own  limits,  and  the  rights 
of  citizenship  as  a  member  of  the  Union." 

Here  is  the  distinction.  By  naturalization,  Congress  can  con 
fer  citizenship  throughout  the  Union.  What  are  the  rights 
created  by  that  ?  Three  in  all.  The  right  to  hold  land  is  one  ; 
the  right  to  sue  in  the  Federal  courts  is  another ;  and  the  right 
to  claim  the  protection  of  this  government,  or  the  right  of  pass 
port  abroad,  is  the  other.  No  State  can  confer  these  rights 
throughout  the  Union ;  but  each  State  may  confer  them  within 
her  limits.  Each  State  may  confer  upon  an  alien  the  right  to 
hold  lands.  No  man  can  question  that;  but  if  Indiana  or 
Georgia  confers  this  right  upon  an  alien,  he  cannot  go  into  South 
Carolina  and  hold  land  there  by  virtue  of  that.  If  he  were 
naturalized  he  could.  So  each  State  may  give  the  right  to  an 
alien  to  sue  in  its  own  courts ;  but,  therefore,  he  does  not 
acquire  a  right  to  sue  in  any  other  State  court  or  the  Federal 
courts.  Each  State  may  guarantee  her  protection  within  her 
limits,  but  not  throughout  the  Union.  She  cannot  pledge  the 
protection  of  the  common  government. 

But  the  court  gees  right  on  with  this  language : 


590  SPEECH   ON   THE    ADMISSION    OF    MINNESOTA. 

"It  does  not  by  any  means  follow, because  he  has  the  rights  and  privi 
leges  of  a  citizen  of  a  State,  that  he  must  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
He  may  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  citizen  of  a  State,  and  yet 
not  be  entitled  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  citizen  in  any  other  State  ; 
for,  previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
every  State  had  the  undoubted  right  to  confer  on  whomsoever  it  pleased 
the  character  of  citizen,  and  to  endow  him  with  all  its  rights  ;  but  this 
character,  of  course,  was  confined  to  the  boundaries  of  the  State,  and  gave 
him  no  rights  or  privileges  in  other  States,  beyond  those  secured  to  him 
by  the  laws  of  nations  and  the  comity  of  States.  Nor  have  the  several 
States  surrendered  the  power  of  conferring  these  rights  and  privileges  by 
adopting  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Each  State  may  still  con 
fer  them  upon  an  alien,  or  any  one  it  thinks  proper,  orupon  any  class  or 
description  of  persons  ;  yet  he  would  not  be  a  citizen  in  the  sense  in  which 
that  word  is  used  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  nor  entitled  to 
sue  as  such  in  one  of  its  courts,  nor  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  a 
citizen  in  the  other  States.  The  rights  which  he  would  acquire  would  be 
restricted  to  the  State  which  gave  them." 

I  ask,  then,  if  the  constitution  of  Minnesota,  according  to  this 
Dred  Scott  decision,  has  an  iota,  or  a  single  clause  in  it,  so  far  as 
alien  suffrage  is  concerned,  which  Chief  Justice  Taney  has  not 
said  she  has  a  right  under,  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
to  put  in  it  ?  This  is  a  right,  none  of  the  States  have  ever  surren 
dered.  Every  State  in  this  Union  has  the  right  of  fixing  the 
status  of  all  its  constituent  elements  absolutely,  as  each  State  may 
determine  for  itself,  and  also  the  right  of  determining  who  may, 
and  who  may  not  vote  at  elections  for  public  officers  under  her 
authority.  What  part  of  the  constitution*  of  Minnesota,  then, 
is  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  Why, 
then,  should  she  not  be  admitted  ? 

Let  me  s&y,  in  conclusion,  that  the  constitution  of  Illinois  has 
such  a  clause.  Is  not  she  an  equal  in  this  Union  ?  Why  not 
rule  her  out  ?  Indiana  has  such  a  clause.  Why  not  rule  her 
out  ?  Michigan  has  such  a  clause.  Why  not  rule  her  out  ? 
Wisconsin  has  such  a  clause.  I  have  the  journal  here.  When 
Wisconsin  was  admitted,  in  1848,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  in  his  seat 
and  he  did  not  even  call  the  yeas  and  nays  on  it.  And  yet  we  are 
told  that  this  is  a  great  and  a  dangerous  example  we  are  setting,  if 
we  admit  Minnesota  on  an  equal  footing  with  Illinois,  Indiana, 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  all  of  the  States.  Deprive  her  of  this 
great  right,  would  she  be  their  equal  ?  Are  Illinois  and  South 
Carolina  now  equal?  Are  Indiana  and  Massachusetts  now  equal? 
Why,  then,  if  you  deny  Minnesota  the  power  that  Illinois  and 
Indiana  have,  will  she  be  equal  to  them  ?  Things  equal  to  one 
another  are  equal  to  each  other.  If  those  in  the  Union  now  are 
equal,  will  not  Minnesota  be  unequal  if  you  deprive  her  of  this 
right  ?  If  you  put  upon  her  a  condition  you  have  never  put  upon 
these  others,  will  not  you  make  her  unequal  ?  and  if  you  bring 
her  in,  would  she  be  upon  an  equal  footing  with  her  sister  States? 
If  she  confers  suffrage  upon  those  born  abroad,  who  purge  them 
selves  of  their  foreign  allegiance  and  swear  to  support  the  consti- 


IMPEACHMENT    OF    JUDGE   WATKOUS.  591 

tution  of  the  United  States,  she  has  the  right  to  do  so.  Any 
State  in  the  Union  now  has  the  same  right,  if  any  see  fit  to  exer 
cise  it.  The  several  States  cannot  confer  citizenship  of  the 
United  States  upon  any  body  or  class  of  persons ;  but  every 
State,  in  her  sovereign  capacity,  has  a  right  to  say  who  shall  vote 
at  elections  in  that  State.  Let  us,  then,  drop  this  objection ;  let 
us  admit  Minnesota,  and  let  her  come  in  clothed  with  all  the  sov 
ereignty  that  the  other  States  possess.  My  time  is  out. 

One  word  about  the  amendment  I  have  offered.  I  thought  that 
by  this  time  Minnesota  would  be  entitled  to  three  members.  The 
enabling  act  entitled  her  to  one,  with  additional  representatives, 
according  to  her  population  under  the  last  apportionment.  The 
information  I  have  received  since  I  offered  my  amendment,  has 
led  me  to  believe  that  her  population  at  this  time  would  not  en 
title  her  to  three  members,  but  will  to  two  ;  and  therefore  I  with 
draw  my  amendment,  and  hope  the  House  will  pass  the  bill  as  it 
came  from  the  Senate.  I  call  for  the  previous  question. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  IMPEACHMENT  OF  JUDGE  WATROUS. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

DECEMBER  15,  1858. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  In  compliant  with  the  promise  I  made  yester 
day,  I  propose  to  address  myself  to  the  House  this  morning  for 
a  very  brief  space  of  time.  An  analysis  of  all  the  facts  set  forth 
in  the  voluminous  mass  of  evidence  before  us  would  require  too 
much  time.  That  is  not  my  object.  It  would  be  useless  to  do 
so.  But  there  are  some  matters  connected  with  the  subject  I 
wish  to  be  heard  upon.  This  is  the  first  case  of  impeachment 
which  has  ever  come  directly  before  me,  since  I  have  been  a  mem 
ber  of  this  House,  for  consideration  and  action.  I  shall,  in  what 
I  say,  attempt  to  lay  down  some  general  principles  by  which  my 
own  conduct  shall  be  governed  in  this  and  all  like  cases.  I  feel 
it  due  to  myself,  due  to  the  party,  due  to  the  country,  and  also 
due  to  the  House.  • 

It  has  been  said  in  this  debate  that  this  is  the  first  instance  of 
impeachment,  in  this  country,  of  a  judicial  officer,  where  there 
has  been  an  imputation  upon  his  integrity  and  honesty — where 
corruption  has  been  charged.  I  believe  that  is  true.  It  is  a 
matter  of  congratulation  to  us,  looking  at  our  past  history ;  and 
I  think  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  any  other  country  upon  earth 
with  a  history  as  long  as.  ours.  This  of  itself  gives  an  interest 
to  the  question  before  us,  which,  in  its  very  nature,  is  one  of  the 
gravest  character.  The  power  we  are  called  upon  to  exercise  is  a 


592  IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATROUS. 

great  one.  It  is  a  wise  power ;  it  is  a  right  power ;  it  is  a  just 
power ;  and  it  ought  to  be  justly  exercised.  We  are  acting,  how 
ever,  under  limited  powers ;  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  should 
have  addressed  the  House  at  all,  had  it  not  been  for  principles 
and  doctrines  advanced  by  some  gentlemen,  b}T  which  we  should 
be  governed,  to  which  I  do  not  assent. 

What  offences  are  impeachable  ?  Some  gentlemen  have  argued 
that  "  misdemeanor"  is  a  term  in  the  constitution  used  in  contra 
distinction  to  that  conduct  known  as  "good  behavior,"  during 
which  a  judge  can  hold  his  office.  To  demean  is  to  behave,  and 
to  misdemean  is  to  misbehave ;  and  any  misbehavior  is  a  misde 
meanor — that  is  their  argument.  I  do  not,  sir,  agree  to  that  con 
struction  of  the  word  "  misdemeanor"  in  that  clause  of  the  consti 
tution  under  which  we  are  acting.  The  constitution  authorizes 
us  to  impeach  for  "  treason,  bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  or  mis 
demeanors."  What  is  to  be  understood  by  this  term  "misde 
meanor  ?"  Is  it  whatever  a  majority  of  this  House,  or  a  majority 
of  the  Senate,  at  any  one  time  may  think  is  misbehavior?  I 
think  not.  From  the  days  of  magna  charta  in  England,  and 
much  more  so  in  the  United  States  under  our  constitution,  no 
man  can  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  <l  aut  aliquo 
modo  distruatur;"  or  in  any  other  manner  be  injured  in  his  estate 
or  reputation,  but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers,  and  the  laivs  of 
the  land.  The  offence  must  not  merely  exist  in  the  breasts  of  a 
majority — questions  of  propriety,  questions  of  what  may  be 
deemed  good  behavior  or  not ;  but  it  must  be  some  offence  known 
to  the  law  or  constitution ;  and  I  will  lay  down  the  broad  princi 
ple  that  the  offence,  to  be  impeachable,  must  be  within  one  or  the 
other  of  the  classes  of  acts,  known  to  the  law  either  as  mala  pro- 
hibita,  or  mala  in  se. 

Now,  sir,  some  have  asked  if  no  act  is  impeachable  by  this 
House  except  such  as  violate  some  statute  of  the  United  States  ? 
I  am  free  to  say  that  my  individual  opinion  is  that  none  others 
are  ;  and  before  you  try  a  man  for  violating  a  law,  you  must  make 
the  law,  or  declare  it ;  and  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  sin. 
Either  in  the  divine  or  human  codes,  where  there  is  no  law  there 
can  be  no  transgression.  No  man  ought  to  be  arraigned  and 
tried  for  any  thing,  unless  in  the  act  complained  of  he  has  violated 
some  law.  But  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  urge  these  individual 
opinions  upon  this  occasion.  I  do  not  intehd  to  do  it,  because, 
in  the  precedents  of  our  past  government,  it  has  not  been  prac- 
ticalty  recognized,  and  for  all  essential  purposes,  so  far  as  this 
case  is  concerned,  it  is  not  necessary  to  do  so.  This,  however, 
is  the  commencement  of  a  criminal  prosecution,  and  it  must  be 
prosecuted  according  to  the  known  rule  of  law  as  recognized  by 
the  precedents,  at  least ;  and  according  to  them  it  must  be  for  a 
violation  of  some  one  or  more  of  the  great  principles  of  the  com 
mon  law. 

This,  I  state,  is  the  practice  of  the  government,  and  I  do  not 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE    WATROUS.  .        593 

care  to  deviate  from  it  in  this  case.  It  is  settled  by  the  highest 
authority ;  and  I  refer  the  House  to  what  Judge  Story  has  said 
upon  the  subject,  in  his  treatise  upon  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  believe  it  will  be  admitted  that  this  eminent 
jurist,  of  whom  our  country  may  well  be  proud,  of  whose  fame 
this  generation  may  be  proud,  whose  name  extends  wherever 
civilization  extends  and  civil  jurisprudence  has  a  foothold,  was 
highly  federal  enough.  That  he  was  in  favor  of  giving  the  gov 
ernment  quite  as  much  power  as  it  ought  to  possess,  I  think  will 
be  conceded.  Now,  in  considering  the  power  of  impeachment, 
and  the  offences  which  are  impeachable,  he  says : 

"The  next  inquiry  is,  what  are  impeachable  offences?  They  are 
'treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.'  For  the 
definition  of  treason,  resort  may  be  had  to  the  constitution  itself;  but  for 
the  definition  of  bribery,  resort  is  naturally  and  necessarily  had  to  the 
common  law ;  for  that,  as  the  common  basis  of  our  jurisprudence,  can 
alone  furnish  the  proper  exposition  of  the  nature  and  limits  of  this 
offence. 

"  The  only  practical  question  is,  what  are  to  be  deemed  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  ?  Now,  neither  the  constitution  nor  any  statute  of  the 
United  States  has  in  any  manner  defined  any  crimes*  except  treason  and 
bribery,  to  be  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  and  as  such  impeachable. 
In  what  manner,  then,  are  they  to  be  ascertained  ?" 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  they  are  to  be  ascertained  by  the  com 
mon  law ;  and  I  beg  leave  to  read  particular  parts  of  what  he 
does  say : 

"  It  is  the  boast  of  English  jurisprudence — and  without  the  power  of 
impeachment  would  be  an  intolerable  grievance — that  in  trials  of  impeach 
ment  the  law  differs  not  in  essentials  from  criminal  prosecutions  before 
inferior  courts." 

Some  gentlemen  have  argued  this  case  as  if  it  was  not  in  the 
nature  of  a  criminal  prosecution.  In  my  judgment  it  is  a  criminal 
prosecution  of  the  very  highest  order ;  in  England  it  is  undoubt 
edly  so,  because  the  loss  of  the  life  of  the  party  was  often  the 
result  of  the  judgment.  It  is  true  that  in  our  constitution  we 
have  limited  it ;  with  us,  the  result  of  a  conviction  is  disqualifi 
cation  from  holding  office.  It  is,  nevertheless,  here  as  there,  as 
Judge  Story  says,  in  the  nature  of  a  criminal  prosecution.  Now, 
mark  you : 

"  The  same  rules  of  evidence,  the  same  legal  notions  of  crime  and  pun 
ishment  prevail." 

"  The  same  legal  notions  of  crime."  Gentlemen  said  yesterday 
that  any  conduct  which  would  disqualify  a  party  from  occupying 
a  seat  on  the  bench,  is  misbehavior.  What,  sir,  is  misbehavior  ? 
What  different  notions  people  have  on  the  subject — it  is  often  a 
matter  of  taste.  uDe  gustibus  non  est  disputandum,"  is  an  old 
maxim.  There  is  nothing  that  there  is  more  difference  of  opin 
ion  about,  than  what  constitutes  misbehavior,  or  good  behavior, 
But  to  go  on: 
38 


594  IMPEACHMENT   OF    JUDGE   WATROUS. 

"  Impeachments  are  not  framed  to  alter  the  law,  but  to  carry  it  into 
more  effectual  execution  where  it  might  be  obstructed  by  the  influence  of 
too  powerful  delinquents,  or  not  easily  discerned  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  jurisdiction,  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  quality  of  the  alleged  crimes." 

Again : 

"  It  seems,  then,  to  be  the  settled  doctrine  of  a  high  court  of  impeach 
ment,  that  though  the  common  law  cannot  be  a  foundation  of  a  jurisdic 
tion  not  given  by  the  constitution  or  laws,  that  jurisdiction,  when  given, 
attaches,  and  is  to  be  exercised  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common 
law ;  and  that  what  are  and  what  are  not  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors, 
is  to  be  ascertained  by  a  recurrence  to  that  great  basis  of  American  juris 
prudence." 

Judge  Story  did  not  go  to  the  extent  of  the  Federal  doctrine, 
that  there  is  an  American  common  law  under  which  indictments 
may  be  found ;  but  he  says  that  the  common  law  is  our  guide, 
and  that  when  the  statute  is  silent  on  an  offence  in  the  high  court 
of  impeachment,  rules  to  ascertain  the  nature  and  extent  of  crimes 
have  to  be  determined  by  that  great  basis  of  American  jurispru 
dence. 

Now,  sir,  one  n*ore  extract,  and  I  will  drop  this  authority,  for 
it  is  uniform : 

"It  is  not  every  offence  which,  by  the  constitution,  is  so  impeachable; 
it  is  not  every  offence  even  against  the  common  law  that  is  impeachable ; 
it  must  not  only  be  an  offence,  but  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor." 

That  is  what  Judge  Story  says.  We  are  first  to  determine  the 
offence  according  to  the  principles  of  common  law,  and  then  it 
must  be  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor  under  that.  To  this  ex 
tent  he  lays  down  the  rule,  and  on  this  principle  I  shall  consider 
this  case.  These  are  the  general  principles  I  intend  to  apply  to 
the  facts  of  this  case. 

All  that  he  has  said  in  this  debate  about  the  purity  of  the  bench, 
and  the  importance  of  preserving  the  judicial  robes  unsullied  and 
untarnished,  I  fully  concur  in.  Every  word  that  has  been  uttered 
on  that  point  I  indorse.  I  would  have  the  ermine  of  your  judges 
as  unstained  as  my  honorable  friend  near  me,  [Mr.  VALLANDIG- 
HAM,]  who  declaimed  so  eloquently  on  that  theme  the  other  day ; 
and  if  there  was  a  single  fact  in  the  case  which  led  me  to  believe 
that  the  purity  of  the  bench  had  been  tainted  in  the  person  of 
Judge  Watrous,  I  would  not  withhold  my  vote  to  send  this  case 
as  charged — that  he  is  guilty  of  having  used  a  forged  instrument 
knowing  it  to  be  forged — to  the  Senate. 

What,  then,  are  the  accusations,  and  what  are  the  facts  ?  I 
propose,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  present  to  this  House  succinctly  the 
gist  of  this  accusation.  I  will  not  undertake  to  detail  all  the 
minutiae  of  the  case,  but  merely  the  strong  points — those  on  which 
the  impeachment  must  or  ought  to  stand  or  fall.  I  am  not  giving 
my  views  to  the  House  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  any  gentle 
man's  mind ;  I  am  only  giving  the  views  which  govern  my  own 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATROUS.  595 

fiction.  I  have  drawn  from  the  memorial  of  the  parties  the  gist 
of  what  I  consider  to  be  the  accusations  in  this  case. 

First,  there  is  the  memorial  of  Spencer,  stating  that,  in  1850, 
Watrons,  while  judge  of  the  United  States  court  for  the  district 
of  Texas,  purchased  or  acquired  an  interest,  secretly  and  under 
cover  of  another  man's  name,  in  a  certain  eleven-league  grant  of 
land  in  Texas,  with  the  understanding  and  intention  of  litigating 
and  determining  the  validity  of  said  eleven-league  grant  in  tho 
Federal  court  of  Texas,  of  which  he  was  the  sole  presiding  judge. 

That  is  the  gist  of  the  first  charge.  Well,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that 
were  true,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  according  to  the  princi 
ples  laid  down,  we  ought  to  vote  to  have  this  case  sent  instantly 
to  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  ought  instantly  to  convict  him,  or 
as  soon  as  the  charge  could  be  proved.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  notwithstanding  this  is  not  an  indictable  offence  by  the 
statutes  of  the  United  States,  it  would  be  by  the  common  law  a 
high  crime  and  misdemeanor  ;  and  if  he  were  guilty  of  it  he  ought 
to  be  impeached  on  those  principles.  But  how  stands  the  fact  ? 
The  allegation  is  that  Judge  Watrous  became  interested,  secretly 
and  covertly,  in  a  certain  title,  with  the  purpose  of  litigating  it 
in  his  own  court.  If  there  was  one  particle  of  evidence,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  this  case,  establishing  that  charge,  I  have 
not  read  it.  He  with  others  bought  a  tract  of  land ;  that  is  true. 
But  I  have  not  seen  any  evidence  that  he  intended  to  litigate  the 
title  in  his  own  court.  In  the  whole  volume  of  evidence — that 
seems  to  have  been  a  drag-net,  bringing  up  every  thing — there  is 
not  a  particle  of  evidence  which  I  have  yet  seen  that  he  either 
acquired  his  interest  secretly,  or  intended  to  litigate  the  case  in 
his  own  court.  So  far,  as  the  charge  of  secrecy  is  concerned,  the 
testimony  shows  that  quite  a  number  of  persons  knew  of  the 
purchase  at  the  time  it  was  made ;  Judge  Hughes,  of  Texas, 
knew  it,  and  Mr.  Love,  the  clerk,  testifies  that  he  knew  it  from 
common  hearsay. 

And  then  as  to  the  intention  of  adjudicating  the  validity  of 
his  own  title  in  his  own  court,  the  testimony  shows  that  even 
before  the  writs  were  filed,  when  he  first  saw  them  in  the  clerk's 
office,  he  spoke  of  his  interest.  Here  is  the  testimony : 

"  Mr.  Love,  sworn,  says :  He  [Judge  Watrous]  came  into  my  office  at 
the  time  the  writs  were  being  issued,  I  think,  and  said  in  substance,  'this 
is  one  of  my  cases  :  I  am  interested  in  this  case.  You  will  lose  your  fees, 
because  they  will  have  to  go  elsewhere  to  be  tried.'  " 

The  same  fact  he  disclosed  and  spoke  of  openly  in  court  at  the 
April  term,  to  which  they  were  returned  in  1851.  There  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  going;  to  show  that  he  ever  concealed  the 
fact  from  mortal  man.  The  allegation  is  attempted  to  be  sus 
tained  only  by  persons  who  never  heard  of  it ;  and  who  cares  for 
the  testimony  of  a  hundred  thousand  witnesses  of  that  character? 
Not  only  the  clerk,  but  the  record  shows  that  this  his  interest 


596  IMPEACHMENT    OF    JUDGE   WATROUS. 

was  announced  in  court,  and  he  refused  to  act  or  pass  orders  in 
those  cases  involving  the  validity  of  his  title.  There  is  not,  then, 
one  particle  of  evidence  to  show  that  there  ever  was  an  intention 
that  his  interest  should  be  concealed. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  argued  yesterday  that  the  conduct  of 
Judge  Watrous  was  fraudulent  and  corrupt  because  he  made  the 
purchase  with  a  view  corruptly  to  transfer  the  case  from  Texas 
to  New  Orleans.  The  evidence  conclusively  and  completely  re 
futes  the  first  charge  of  intending  to  try  it  himself,  and  the  argu 
ment  now  is,  that  he  corruptly  bought  the  land  in  order  that  the 
case  might  be  transferred  to  another  State.  The  original  accu 
sation  againt  him  failed,  and  now  he  is  pursued  with  a  distinct 
disavowal  of  the  original  ground  of  accusation  with  another 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  first. 

Well,  sir,  League,  according  to  his  evidence,  was  a  non-resident 
of  Texas,  and  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  BINGHAM,]  said 
yesterday  that  he  was  a  partner  with  Watrous,  and  that  the  title 
was  given  to  Lapsle}r,  in  order  to  get  the  case  into  the  Federal 
court.  Now,  Mr.  League,  himself,  was  a  non-resident,  and  had  a 
right  to  bring  the  case  in  the  Federal  court.  Is  not  that  strain 
ing  the  evidence  a  long  way,  in  order  to  cast  an  imputation  upon 
Judge  Watrous,  where  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  ? 

Mr.  BILLINGHTJRST.  Allow  me  to  say  that  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  has  decided  that  he  was  not  bona  fide  a  non 
resident  and  dismissed  the  case  which  he  brought  upon  that 
ground  after  Judge  Watrous  had  decided  in  such  a  way  that  he 
was  held  to  be  a  non-resident  of  Texas. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  When  was  that  ?     At  what  date  ? 

Mr.  BILLINGHURST.  It  was  in  the  case  pf  League  vs.  Jones  et 
aL,  which  is  reported  in  18  Howard. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  They  decided  that  League  was  not  a  non 
resident  ? 

Mr.  BILLINGHURST.  Yes,  sir;  the  court  decided  that  he  had 
removed  to  Maryland  for  the  purposes  of  litigation,  and  hence 
turned  him  out  of  court. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  When  was  that  decision  made  ? 

Mr.  BILLINGHURST.  In  the  December  term,  1855. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  That  does  not  at  all  interfere  with  my  argument. 
The  Supreme  Court  may  have  decided  that  he  was  not  a  bona  fide 
non-resident ;  but  if  he  sued  as  such  in  the  Federal  court,  that 
showed  that  he  thought  he  was,  and  would  not  have  got  Lapsley 
joined  in  the  purchase  for  the  purpose  of  suing  in  that  court. 
The  decision  that  he  was  not,  made  long  after  this  transaction, 
could  not  have  influenced  his  motive  at  the  time  of  the  trade. 

I  come  now,  sir,  to  the  second  allegation.  The  first  charge  has 
been  substantially  abandoned,  and  the  second  is,  that  several  suits 
were  brought  in  the  Federal  court  of  Texas,  of  which  said  Wat 
rous  was  sole  judge,  in  the  year  1851,  to  test  the  validity  of  said 
grant :  that  they  continued  pending  there  until  1854.  In  the  mean 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATBOUS.  597 

time  various  orders  were  entered  in  said  causes,  said  Watrous 
acting  as  though  no  such  interest  on  his  part  existed  ;  that  during 
this  period  of  nearly  four  years,  he  fraudulently  and  corruptly 
concealed  his  interest  in  the  subject-matter  of  litigation  before 
him ;  that  his  interest  was  finally  detected  and  became  publicly 
known  ;  then  the  cases  were  transferred  to  the  Louisiana  circuit. 

Well,  sir,  if  this  charge  be  true ;  if,  as  stated,  he  did  act  in  his 
own  case ;  I  say  according  to  the  principles  laid  down,  put  the 
brand  of  infamy  eternally  upon  him.  But,  sir,  when  I  take  up 
this  book  of  testimony,  I  see  that  when  the  writs  were  filed, 
Judge  Watrous  announced  his  interest,  and  published  it  to  the 
bar,  and  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  he  never  passed  a 
single  order  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  Here  is  the  testimony : 

Mr.  Love,  the  clerk,  swears  : 

"  Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  occasion  when  you  first  heard  the  sub 
ject  mentioned  in  court? 

•  "  Answer.  When  the  cases  were  called  in  court,  Judge  Watrous  said 
distinctly,  (I  have  the  minutes  and  memoranda  of  the  court,  and  I  know 
it  was  then',)  '  I  am.  interested  in  these  suits.'  Somebody  wanted  an  order 
in  these  cases ;  says  he,  '  I  will  give  you  no  order  in  these  cases,  for  I 
would  not  touch  them  with  a  forty-foot  pole.'  " 

Again,  the  minutes  show  this  order  : 

"John  W.  Lapsley  vs.  Charles  Duncan. 

"This  day  came  the  parties  by  their  attorney,  and  thereupon  the  judge 
presiding  having  stated  that  he  could  not  sit  in  this  cause  by  reason  of  a 
personal  interest,  and  of  an  interest  of  persons  with  whom  he  is  connected 
by  blood,  in  a  part  of  the  subject-matter  in  contest,  the  said  parties  by 
their  attorneys  agree  that  this  cause  be  removed  and  transferred  for  tria'l 
to  the  district  of  Austin." 

Now,  sir,  in  the  face  of  this  record,  it  is  asserted  that  he  acted 
in  his  own  case,  and  kept  his  interest  secret  for  four  years,  until 
he  was  detected — that  is,  from  1850  to  1854.  Why,  the  accusa 
tion  is  utterly  disproved ;  the  testimony  is  directly  to  the 
contrary. 

Mr.  BILLINGHURST.  Did  I  understand  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  to  sa}*-  that  Judge  Watrous's  interest  was  discovered  at 
the  first  term  after  these  causes  were  instituted  ?  The  causes  were 
instituted  in  January,  1851,  and  this  entry  on  the  record  was  not 
made  until  January,  1852.  Two  terms  intervened  before  it  was 
made. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  This  is  the  way  I  read  it : 

"  At  the  United  States  district  court  for  the  State  of  Texas,  held  in  the 
city  of  Galveston,  on  the  21st  May,  1851,"  etc. 

Mr.  BILLINGHURST.  The  gentleman  will  find  that  the  entry  he 
has  just  read  relates  to  "continuances."  If  he  will  read  from  the 
record  before  him  a  few  lines  further  on,  he  will  find  that  the 
judge  did  not  make  the  disclosure  of  his  interest  until  January 
4,  1852. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  That  does  not  affect  the  merits  of  the  case  at 


598  IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE  WATROUS. 

all.  When  his  interest  was  disclosed  or  announced,  the  case  was, 
and  it  ought  to  have  been,  continued.  The  great  fact  is,  that  his 
interest  was  not  concealed,  and  that  he  made  no  order  touching 
its  merits.  This  the  record  shows,  while  there  is  not  a  single 
witness  who  testifies  that  Judge  Watrous  ever  designed  at  any 
term,  or  ever  did,  in  fact,  conceal  his  interest  for  a  single  mo 
ment.  The  testimony  is  positive  that  the  announcement  was 
made  when  the  writ  was  issued,  before  it  was  filed  even,  and  that 
he  never  made  a  single  order  in  the  case,  except  to  continue  by 
agreement  of  attorneys  until  the  transfer  was  made. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  if  he 
is  apprised  of  the  fact  that  Spencer  states  that  he  never  knew  of 
Judge  Watrous's  interest,  until  the  order  for  the  transfer  was 
made. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  know  nothing  of  Spencer's  statement,  further 
than  appears  upon  the  record  ;  nor  would  his  statement,  under  the 
circumstances,  have  much  influence  with  me.  For  any  man  who 
comes  before  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
and  charges  a  high  judicial  officer  with  having  concealed  his 
interest  in  a  case  for  four  years,  during  which  time  he  took  orders 
in  his  own  case,  and  was  then  detected,  when  there  is  not  one 
solitary  fact  to  prove  the  allegation,  but  the  contrary  appearing, 
as  in  this  case,  I  say  that  a  man  who  thus  deliberately  makes  such 
a  groundless  charge,  for  the  purpose  of  blackening  the  character 
of  another  man,  high  or  low,  I  would  not  believe  under  oath  in 
any  thing.  But  whether  his  statement  be  true  or  not,  whether  he 
knew  of  the  interest  of  the  judge  or  not,  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  CRAIGE,  of  North  Carolina.  Pascal  swears  that  he  knew 
of  the  interest  long  before  the  time  when  Spencer  says  it  was  de 
tected  in  1854. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  He  knew  it ;  but  he  said  he  received  his  informa 
tion  in  a  way  in  which  he  did  not  feel  authorized  to  make  it  known 
to  any  one. 

Mr.  CRAIGE,  of  North  Carolina.  Pascal  was  an  ejiemy  of 
Judge  Watrous,  and  had  no  object  in  concealing  it. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  That  is  immaterial.  Why,  sir,  Alexander  came 
here  in  1852,  and  tried  to  get  Judge  Watrous  impeached,  not  for 
the  matters  now  alleged  ;  and  this  same  interest  of  Judge  Watrous 
was  then  disclosed  or  spoken  of  before  a  committee  of  this 
House. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to  point  to  a 
word  or  syllable  in  this  record  which  discloses  the  interest  of 
Judge  Watrous  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  order  which  I  have  just  read,  shows  it. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  That  order  was  made  two  years  after  the  case 
was  filed.  It  was  made  in  1852. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  order  was  made  in  January,  1852,  the 
suits  were  brought  in  January,  1851,  returnable  to  April  term, 
1851  His  interest  was  then  disclosed  as  proved,  and  the  cases 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATKOUS.  599 

continued  by  consent  of  parties.  If  Judge  Watrous  ever  passed 
any  order  in  any  one  of  these  cases  touching  the  merits  of  the 
cause,  I  defy  any  gentleman  to  point  it  out.  I  have  looked  for 
it  in  the  testimony  in  vain.  Yet  Spencer  says  he  took  orders  in 
his  own  case  for  four  years,  until  his  interest  was  detected. 

I  now,  sir,  pass  to  the  third  charge.  It  is,  that  after  the 
transfer  of  said  cases  to  the  Louisiana  circuit,  and  on  the  trial 
of  the  issue  involving  the  validity  of  the  title  in  which  said 
Watrous  was  so  corruptly  interested,  under  said  grant,  the  plain 
tiffs,  Watrous's  associates  and  confederates,  amongst  other  docu 
ments,  introduced  what  purported  to  be  a  certain  powrer  of 
attorney  from  one  La  Yega  and  others,  to  one  Williams,  dated 
the  5th  May,  1832,  which  said  instrument,  or  pretended  power 
of  attorney,  was  a  forgery,  and  known  as  such  to  the  parties 
offering  the  same,  and  all  of  which  was  done  with  the  previous 
knowledge,  advice,  and  assent  of  said  Watrous,  judge,  as  afore 
said. 

This  allegation  is,  that  when  his  interest  was  detected;  when, 
as  judge,  he  could  not  try  and  pass  upon  his  own  case,  it  was 
transferred  to  New  Orleans.  He  followed  there ;  and  as  one  of 
the  links  in  the  chain  of  his  title,  he  caused  his  confederates  to 
offer  an  instrument  which  was  forged,  and  which  he  knew  to  be 
forged. 

I  say  again,  if  that  be  true,  condemn  him,  according  to  the 
rule  laid  down.  If  that  be  true,  if  it  is  supported  by  a  single 
particle  of  evidence  even  of  probable  cause,  I  will  say,  let  his 
impeachment  be  voted.  But  so  far  from  it,  there  is  not  a  parti 
cle  of  evidence  even  that  he  ever  saw  this  La  Yega  power  of 
attorney  in  his  life.  It  was  never  read  to  him,  and  he  never  saw 
it.  It  was  one  of  the  links  in  the  chain  of  title  ;  but  whether  it 
was  forged  or  not,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Judge 
Watrous  knew  it.  I  call  upon  the  gentleman  to  show  the  evi 
dence  that  Judge  Watrous  knew  it  to  be  a  forgery. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  to  the 
record  made  by  Judge  Watrous  himself  upon  the  trial,  of  Ufford 
vs.  Dykes,  upon  a  judgment  by  default,  and  upon  writ  of  equity 
awarded,  where  there  was  no  resistance  by  the  defendant.  Judge 
Watrous  charged  the  jury,  on  that  trial,  that  the  title  was  good 
and  conveyed  the  land.  And  these  were  the  identical  title 
papers  under  which  Watrous  claimed  his  interest  in  the  La 
Yega  grant,  the  same  concession,  same  power  to  locate,  and  the 
same  power  of  sale. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Did  he  say  he  knew  it  was  forged  ?  If  he  said 
the  title  was  good,  does  that  show  that  he  knew  it  was  forged  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  That  is  not  the  point. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  is  precisely  the  point.  How  can  you  sustain 
a  charge  against  Judge  Watrous  on  the  ground  of  this  forged 
instrument  unless  he  knew  it  was  forged  ? 


600  IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATROUS. 

Mr.  MILLSON.  The  gentleman  has  made  a  concession  which  I 
do  not  think  he  intended  to  have  made. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Perhaps  the  gentleman  will  not  think  so  when 
he  hears  me  through. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  have  seen  the  gentleman's  adroitness  before  in 
avoiding  the  point  at  issue ;  and  now  he  essays  to  display  it  at 
my  expense ;  and  I  wish  to  show  how  he  does  it.  He  asserted 
that  the  judge  never  saw  the  power  of  attorney ;  but  he  has 
passed  over  the  allegation  that  the  judge  never  saw  the  power  of 
attorney,  and  contented  himself  with  saying  that  he  did  not 
know  it  was  a  forgery.  M.y  point  is,  that  Judge  Watrous  could 
not  have  adjudicated  the  default  case  before  him  without  looking, 
at  the  time  of  the  suit,  at  the  power  of  sale,  and  he  was  bound  to 
look  at  it. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  What  I  said  to  the  gentleman  was,  that  there 
was  no  evidence,  no  witnesses,  to  show  that  Judge  Watrous  ever 
saw  it  even,  much  less  that  he  knew  it  was  forged. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  There  is  the  record. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  record  does  not  show  that  he  ever  saw  the 
power  of  attorney.  The  gentleman  draws  an  inference.  In  the 
case  of  Ufford  vs.  Dykes,  this  question  was  in  issue  ;  but  the 
attorney  says  the  power  of  attorney  was  not  read  ;  that  the  plain 
tiffs  would  not  go  to  trial  because  he  did  not  have  it ;  that  he 
permitted  them  to  use  his  copy,  but  that  no  question  was  raised 
upon  it,  and  that  it  was  not  read  in  court ;  and  that  when  the 
defendants  acknowledged  its  validity,  then  only  the  judge  said 
that  the  title  as  admitted  was  good.  But  there  is  no  evidence  in 
the  world  that  the  judge  ever  saw  it,  or  examined  it,  or  knew 
any  thing  about  its  genuineness.  The  gentleman  argues  inferen- 
tially  that  he  did  see  it,  but  the  testimony  is  that  he  did  not  see 
it ;  but  if  he  had  seen  it,  that  would  not  prove  that  he  knew  it 
was  forged  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  The  gentleman  has  shifted  his  ground  again. 
I  said  he  must  have  seen  the  title  papers,  when  he  charged  the 
jury  that  the  title  was  good,  and  conveyed  the  land  at  the  time 
the  default  judgment  was  taken  ;  but  he  has  gone  off,  and  answers 
me  by  stating  what  occurred  on  a  subsequent  trial  of  the  same 
case,  this  default  judgment  having  previously  been  set  aside,  and 
a  new  trial  granted.  And  if,  in  the  charge  I  speak  of,  there  was 
no  power  of  sale,  then  the  judge  gave  a  false  charge,  and  ought 
to  be  impeached  for  that. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  let  him  be  impeached  for  that ;  but  I  am 
dealing  with  the  charges  as  they  are  preferred. 

In  reference  to  the  case  of  Ufford  vs.  Dykes,  I  will  say  that 
the  plaintiff  claimed  lands,  and  that  this  De  la  Vega  power  of 
attorney  was  a  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence ;  and  it  is  said  that 
Judge  Watrous  corruptly  acted  as  judge  in  that  case,  because,  in 
its  trial,  that  link  in  the  chain  of  title  of  the  plaintiff  was  per 
mitted  to  go  before  him,  and  he  passed  corruptly  upon  it.  Now, 


IMPEACHMENT    OF   JUDGE   WATROUS.  601 

suppose  a  judge,  residing  in  this  district,  should  buy  a  piece  of 
land  under  the  grant  of  Mr.  Carroll,  who  held  this  whole  tract  of 
country,  and  a  suit  should  be  brought  in  reference  thereto  :  the  title 
to  that  piece  of  land  would  have  to  be  traced  in  the  court  from  the 
king's  grant  down  through  Carroll.  I  suppose  it  would  be  held 
by  the  gentleman  from  Texas  and  others  that  a  judge  of  this 
district,  who  might  hold  his  own  title  from  the  same  source, 
could  not  sit  on  the  trial  of  the  case.  It  is  monstrous. 

Mr.  MILLSON.  I  desire  to  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  that  the  power  of  attorney  from  La  Vega  was  not  a 
link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  in  the  case  of  Ufford  us.  Dykes. 

Mr.  REAGAN.     It  wras  an  essential  link. 

Mr.  MILLSON.  There  were  three  eleven-league  grants  of  land 
to  the  two  Aguirres  and  La  Vega,  severally  ;  and,  although  the 
two  Aguirres  and  La  Yega  united  in  a  power  of  attorney  which 
was  written  upon  the  same  paper,  yet  they  were,  in  legal  contem 
plation,  separate  and  distinct  powers.  In  the  Ufford  vs.  Dykes 
case,  the  plaintiff  claimed  under  Agtiirre  ;  and  even  though  the 
judge  might  have  known  that  the  signature  of  La  Vega  was 
forged,  it  did  not  affect  the  power  from  Aguirre. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  If  that  were  so — if  the  La  Yega  power  of  at 
torney  was  a  link  in  the  chain  of  Ufford's  title — it  is  not  corrupt 
necessarily,  because  the  judgment  in  the  case  could  not  possibly 
over  have  affected  the  judge's  interest.  I  see  no  corruption  in 
that;  none  in  the  world.  But  the  truth  is,  that  the  judge  did 
not  see  the  power  of  attorney ;  it  was  not  read  ;  and  there  is  not 
the  slightest  shadow  of  proof  that  he  ever  knew  that  it  was  the 
same  paper.  Not  a  single  witness  swears  that  Judge  Watrous 
ever  saw  it,  or  knew  that  it  was  a  forgery.  The  gist  of  the  charge 
is,  that  a  forged  instrument  was  used  in  court ;  that  the  judge 
knew  it,  and  sent  it  there.  If  so,  according  to  the  principles  laid 
down  he  ought  to  be  impeached;  but  there  is  not  a  particle  of 
proof,  not  a  shade  of  a  shadow,  or  a  semblance  of  proof,  to  sus 
tain  any  such  charge,  if  it  is  true. 

But,  as  I  understand  the  fact,  there  was  an  issue  of  non  est 
faclum  made  upon  that  power  of  attorne}'  in  the  Louisiana  court ; 
and,  upon  the  trial,  the  jury  found  it  was  not  a  forgeiy. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  They  did  upon  the  testimony  of  Hewitson,  who 
swore  that  Gouzales  was  dead ;  and  Gonzales  came  forward  and 
testified  as  a  witness  in  the  case  two  years  afterward. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  not  going  to  bring  up  all  the  records  to 
show  how  it  was  done  ;  but  there  was  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  presiding,  all  the  witnesses  were  there 
upon  both  sides,  and  the  result  of  the  verdict  of  twelve  men  was, 
that  the  paper  was  not  a  forgery.  Now,  I  take  it  for  granted, 
that  they  were  as  competent  to  judge  of  that  fact  as  this  House 
is.  Are  you  to  say  that  that  instrument  is  a  forgery  ?  Why, 
before  you  could  impeach  Judge  Watrous  upon  this  indictment, 
you  are  bound  upon  your  oath  to  say  it  was  a  forgeiy — which 


602  IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATROUS. 

that  jury  could  not  do  with  all  the  evidence  before  them.  You 
have  got  to  say  not  only  that  it  was  a  forgery,  but  that  Judge 
Watrous  knew  it. 

But,  in  addition  to  that,  is  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  from 
Texas  [Mr.  BRYAN]  the  other  day,  from  the  private  papers  of 
Stephen  F.  Austin,  executed  in  1833,  I  believe,  in  which  he 
alludes  to  this  identical  paper,  and  says  it  conveyed  the  power 
of  sale.  To  my  mind  that  is  conclusive,  if  there  was  any 
other  evidence  wanting,  that  that  power  of  attorney  is  good  and 
valid. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  My  colleague  never  said  what  the  gentleman 
supposes  he  did  ;  and  there  are  no  such  papers  in  the  case. 

Mr.  BRYAN.  My  colleague  says  there  were  no  papers  in  the 
case.  My  declaration  upon  this  floor,  the  extracts  I  read,  and 
the  assertion  that  I  would  present  to  him  and  to  any  other  per 
sons  the  originals,  should  be  sufficient  to  him  and  any  other 
persons. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  spoke  of  the  title  papers,  and  in  no  one  of 
them  is  that  fact  given. 

Mr.  BRYAN.  The  fact  is  given,  and  that  is  sufficient,  without 
any  title  papers.  I  agree  most  thoroughly  with  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  must  go  on.  I  have  stated  the  most  prom 
inent  parts  of  this  case.  There  is  one  rule  which  governs  me, 
and  I  think  it  is  a  wise  and  good  one.  When  any  person  makes 
an  accusation  against  another's  fair  fame  and  reputation,  and 
deliberately  publishes  what  turns  out  to  be  a  most  gross  and  out 
rageous,  if  not  malicious,  charge  against  him,  and  I  find  that  he 
has  committed  a  great  wrong  against  his  fellow-man  by  accusing 
him  falsely,  I  watch  very  closely  the  smaller  matters  of  his  accu 
sation  ;  and  when  those  great  matters  are  proven  to  be  untrue,  I 
apply  another  maxim  of  law  to  the  smaller  ones — de  minimis  non 
curat  lex. 

As  to  the  rulings  or  errors  in  the  Mussina  case,  in  which  it  is 
not  pretended  that  Judge  Watrous  had  the  remotest  personal 
interest,  I  have  read  them  all  carefully  ;  and  this  is  what  I  have 
got  to  saj-  to  that ;  that  if  these  were  errors,  Mr.  Mussina  could 
have  appealed.  In  my  judgment,  he  comes  now  falseVy,  and  says 
he  did  not  appeal  because  Judge  Watrous  would  not  let  him. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  will  show  him 
that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  appeal  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     I  will. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  Well ;  let  me  tell  the  gentleman  that  by  the 
action  of  this  judge,  a  married  woman  and  a  minor  child,  resident 
in  Mexico,  were  made  parties  defendant — the  one  without  a 
husband,  and  the  other  without  a  guardian  in  the  jurisdiction  or 
under  the  power  of  the  court ;  and  Mussina  never  could  have  had 
the  necessary  papers  served  on  them  to  bring  up  the  appeal  as  to 
them,  and  without  them  no  appeal  would  lie.  The  matter  was  so 


IMPEACHMENT   OF   JUDGE   WATROUS.  603 

ingeniously  arranged  by  the  judge,  that  there  was  no  possibility 
of  appeal. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Did  Mussina  make  that  point  before  the 
judge  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  He  could  not.  When  could  the  point  have 
been  made  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  When  the  error  was  committed,  why  did  he 
not  except  then,  and  take  it  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  ?  Why 
could  he  not  ?  and  why  did  he  not  ?  He  did  not ;  and  it  is  a 
pretext  for  him  to  do  so  now.  I  do  not  think  there  was  any 
error  in  these  rulings.  In  my  judgment,  every  ruling  of  the 
judge  that  is  complained  of  was  right.  That  is  my  opinion  as  a 
lawyer.  But  if  there  was  any  error  in  them,  our  judicial  system 
provides  for  the  means  of  correcting  errors  of  judgment ;  but  not 
by  impeachment,  f 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  wish  now  to  have  the  gentleman  from  Georgia 
answer  this  question  :  Was  it  right  in  the  judge  to  admit  a  party 
to  the  suit  to  swear  as  a  general  witness,  in  his  own  case,  against 
the  objection  of  the  adverse  party  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  As  to  all  such  questions  as  serving  notices  and 
interrogatories,  it  is  uniformly  allowed  by  the  courts. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  But  I  ask  whether  a  party  should  be  admitted 
as  a  general  witness  ?  Let  the  gentleman  go  the  whole  length  of 
the  record. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  State  the  point  in  the  record. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  ask  you  if  it  was  right  in  the  judge 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Just  wait.  If  there  was  error  in  that,  why  not 
have  ex-eepted  to  it,  and  have  it  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  have  answered,  that  Mussina  could  not  do  it. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Why? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  For  the  reasoa  that  the  necessary  process  could 
not  be  served  on  the  married  woman  and  minor  child,  who 
resided  in  Mexico,  and  whom  Judge  Watrous  improperly  and 
unlawfully  took  jurisdiction  of. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Why  did  he  not  except  to  that. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  He  did  except. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Why  not  bring  it  to  the  Supreme  Court  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  stated  in  m}*-  argument  the  other  day,  an  addi 
tional  reason  that  Mussina  believed  that  the  appeal  taken  by 
Shannon  would  have  settled  his  own  case. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Does  Mussina  show  that  he  ever  thought  that 
Shannon's  case  carried  up  his  ? 

Mr.  REAGAN.  He  employed  Mr.  Benjamin  as  his  counsel  in  that 
appeal,  and  did  not  know  that  Shannon's  case  did  not  carry  his 
until  Mr.  Benjamin  told  him  that  it  did  not. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  He  went  to  see  Mr.  Benjamin,  to  get  him  to 
defend  his  case,  after  nearly  five  years  had  elapsed,  and  Mr. 
Benjamin  swears  that  he  did  not  understand  what  case  Mussina 
was  talking  about ;  so  little  did  he  know  about  it,  that  he  could 


604  IMPEACHMENT    OF   JUDGE   WATROUS. 

not  describe  it  correctly.  But  he  had  ample  time  to  appeal  after 
Mr.  Benjamin  told  him  of  the  defect ;  and  Judge  Watrous  noti 
fied  his  lawyer  after  Mr.  Benjamin's  opinion  was  given,  that  he 
was  ready  to  certify  the  appeal  when  he  complied  with  the  terms 
of  the  law.  But  he  did  not  do  it. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  In  justice  to  Mr.  Mussina  let  me  say  that  Mr. 
Benjamin  djd  not  state  that  that  was  the  fault  of  Mussina,  but  a 
mistaken  inference  on  his  part.  He  supposed  that  Mussina 
referred  to  another  case  in  which  his  name  was  mentioned. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  let  those  things  go  for  what  they  are 
worth. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  return.  As  to  all  these  rulings,  as  my 
attention  has  been  directed  to  them  out  of  the  line  of  my  argument, 
and  by  which  so  much  time,  unexpected,  has  been  consumed,  I 
repeat,  in  nry  judgment,  they  were  correct ;  wj^nesses  were  allowed 
where  their  interest  was  mutually  balanced  ;  and  in  one  instance 
complained  of,  the  preponderance  of  interest  was  against  the 
party  calling  the  witness.  In  my  judgment  every  one  of  them  was 
correct.  But  a  sufficient  answer  for  me  is  that  if  there  was  an 
error  of  judgment,  an  appeal  might  have  been  taken,  and  if  the 
party  lost  his  appeal  by  laches,  he  cannot  now  get  redress  by 
impeachment. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  time,  I  will  show 
how  often  he  tried  to  get  an  appeal. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Not  now.  I  have  talked  with  some  gentlemen 
on  this^matter,  who  told  me  that  they  think  it  was  wrong  in 
Judge  Watrous  to  have  gone  to  Alabama  and  join  with  citizens 
of  that  State  to  buy  these  lands.  All  that  I  have  got  to  say  on 
that  is,  that  it  was  no  offence;  and  I  sa}^  further,  that  if  Judge 
Watrous  was  the  man  that  they  pretend  to  think  he  is,  and 
charge  him  to  be,  Spencer,  instead  of  complaining  of  what  he  did, 
ought  to  thank  him  for  it,  for  if  he  had  not  been  interested  Laps- 
ley  could  have  sued  in  his  cour1:  and  got  a  trial  before  him — this 
most  corrupt  judge  as  they  charge  him  to  be.  But  as  he  became 
interested,  the  case  complained  of  was  transferred  and  tried 
before  Judge  Campbell ;  against  him  there  is  no  charge  or  impu 
tation.  By  the  arrangement  he  got  an  able,  competent,  and 
acknowledged  honest  man  to  try  his  cause.  If  he  lost  it  as  he 
did,  he  has  no  reason  to  complain  of  Judge  Watrous.  No  one 
pretends  that  justice  has  been  defeated  or  any  body  been  wronged. 
If  Spencer  has  lost  his  case,  it  was  because  the  law  was  against 
him.  The  burden  of  his  complaint  now  is,  that,  by  the  conduct 
of  Judge  Watrous,  his  cause  was  tried  before  an  honest  judge  and 
impartial  jury. 

One  word  about  the  action  of  the  legislature  of  Texas.  This 
was  in  1848,  not  about  any  of  these  transactions ;  the  reason  why 
the  legislature  requested  him  to  resign,  as  I  understand  it,  was 
because  he  held  that  certain  statutes  of  limitation  did  not  run 
until  the  parties  got  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  of  Texas. 


RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   ONE.  605 

Mr.  REAGAN.  That  was  not  the  cause  of  the  action  of  the 
legislature.  The  reason  they  requested  Judge  Watrous  to  resign 
was  because  he  was  believed  to  be  engaged  in  dealing  in  fraudu 
lent  land  certificates  and  fraudulent  eleven  league  grants. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Well,  at  all  events,  Mr.  Speaker,  they  could 
not  have  alluded  to  this  transaction,  because  the  resolution  was 
adopted  in  1848,  and  this  purchase  was  not  made  till  1850.  I  do 
not  think  that  spiritual  rappings  had  been  known  so  early  as  1848, 
or  that  there  was  any  media  at  that  day,  which  could  tell  in 
1848  what  could  be  done  in  1850,  and  from  that  on  to  1854. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  But  fraudulent  certificates  and  fraudulent  eleven 
league  grants  were  known  then,  if  spiritualism  was  not. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  all  I  have  got  to  say  is,  that  the  legisla 
ture  was  worse  than  Mussina,  for  they  allowed  ten  years  to  pass 
and  have  not  yet  brought  witnesses  to  prove  this  fact. 

Mr.  REAGAN.     Will  the  gentleman  stop  there  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     Yes,  right  there.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  offered  to  prove  that  before  the  judiciary 
committee  during  the  last  session.  I  went  before  them  with  a 
record  of  the  circuit  court  of  Louisiana  for  that  purpose,  and 
asked  to  have  witnesses  examined,  as  I  have  said  before ;  but  I 
was  denied  the  privilege  by  the  action  of  this  House  and  the 
committee. 

1  also  offered  to  prove  that  he  had  sold  three  fraudulent  league 
certificates  to  Mr.  Low,  of  Illinois,  and  swindled  him  out  of  about 
six  thousand  dollars,  when  he  knew  them  to  be  fraudul^t,  void, 
and  worthless  ;  for  which,  by  the  laws  of  Texas,  he  subjected  him 
self  to  a  most  ignominious  punishment ;  but  was  denied  the  op 
portunity  of  doing  this,  too. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Then  it  would  have  been  much  better  to  have 
proved  it  in  Texas,  and  have  had  him  whipped. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


RAILROAD  LETTER,     NUMBER  ONE. 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  MARCH  13,  185?. 

DEAR  SIR: — Your  esteemed  favor  pf  the  7th  instant  was  not 
received  until  last  night.  I  had  been  absent  from  home  for  sev 
eral  days.  This  will  account  to  you  for  the  delay  of  my  answer. 
I  now  cheerfully  comply  with  your  request,  to  give  you  such  in 
formation  as  I  can  touching  the  origin  and  construction  of  our 
great  State  railroad  and  the  prominent  actors  connected  with  it. 
I  entered  the  legislature  for  the  first  time  in  1836  as  a  member 
of  the  House  from  this  county.  That  was  the  session  the  first 
movement  was  made  for  the  construction  of  the  State  railroad. 


6(36  RAILROAD    LETTER   NUMBER    ONE. 

I  was  amongst  its  most  zealous  advocates.  It  is  difficult  at  this 
time  to  conceive  the  objections  then  raised  against  it.  Almost  as 
difficult  as  for  the  enlightened  men  of  this  day  and  generation  to 
conceive  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  obstacles  and  impedi 
ments  that  la^y  in  the  way  of,  and  environed  the  path  of  all  the 
great  improvements  which  have  marked  the  progress  of  civiliza 
tion  for  the  last  three  hundred  years.  It  was  a  new  enterprise. 
It  required  a  great  outlay  of  money.  It  looked  to  the  creation 
of  a  State  debt  of  frightful  magnitude  in  the  eyes  of  many  of  our 
oldest  and  most  faithful  public  men  reared  in  the  school  of  rigid 
economy.  It  was  not  a  party  question,  nor  did  men  divide  on  it 
with  any  reference  to  the  then  existing  parties.  Some  of  the 
ablest  champions  of  this  work  were  democrats.  Amongst  them 
in  the  House  (and  what  I  shall  say  will  be  confined  mostly  to  that 
body)  was  William  W.  Gordon,  of  Chatham.  He  was  emphati 
cally  the  leader  of  the  measure.  He  had  been  in  the  legislature 
for  several  years,  and  had  acquired  considerable  reputation  as  a 
man  of  ability  and  influence.  My  views  and  position  on  this 
question  brought  me  very  soon  in  free,  full,  and  frequent  communi 
cation  with  him.  He  was  a  man  of  high  order  of  mind  naturally ; 
thoroughly  educated  at  West  Point,  I  think,  though  he  did  not 
go  into  the  army.  He  was  a  lawtyer  in  Savannah.  Few  men  in 
Georgia  at  that  time  were  his  superiors  in  intelligence  or  intel 
lectual  attainments.  Besides  this,  he  was  a  man  of  untiring  in 
dustry  and  energ3^.  His  whole  soul  was  in  this  work.  It  was 
from  mp  recollection  of  the  scenes  of  that  session  and  the  part 
he  acted  in  them,  as  well  as  the  scenes  of  subsequent  sessions, 
when  the  road,  after  being  commenced,  was  threatened  with 
abandonment,  that  I  urged  upon  some  friends,  a  few  years  ago, 
the  propriety  of  naming  a  county  after  him,  and  erecting  a  monu 
ment  to  his  memory.  The  suggestion  was  carried  out.  This 
much  I  have  thought  due  to  him  that  I  should  say  to  you.  He 
at  the  time  stood  high  in  the  estimation  of  his  party,  then  in 
the  majority,  but  none  of  his  associates  of  prominence  in  the 
House  backed  him,  unless  I  except  Crane,  of  Lurnpkin.  I  am  not 
certain  whether  Henr}^  G.  Lamar  was  in  this  session  or  not.  It  is 
strange  that  I  do  not,  and  I  have  not  the  journals  to  refer  to,  but  if  he 
was,  I  know  he  was  an  active  and  able  supporter  of  the  measure. 
He  was  amongst  the  ablest  supporters  whenever  he  was  there ; 
this  I  know.  Crane's  given  name  I  do  not  recollect.  He  had  a 
respectable  position  as  a  debating  member,  and  was  a  warm  ad 
vocate  of  the  road.  The  most  of  the  speaking  talent  of  the  House 
that  session  was  on  the  side  of  the  opposition,  known  at  that  day 
as  "  State  rights  men."  Amongst  them,  first  and  foremost,  may 
be  mentioned  Charles  J.  Jenkins.  After  him  may  be  named 
Andrew  J.  Miller,  Samuel  W.  Flournoy  (now  of  the  Columbus 
Enquirer),  James  A.  Merriwether,  Edward  Y.  Hill,  Iverson  L. 
Harris,  William  B.  Pryor,  Isaac  N.  Davis,  then  of  Elbert  county 
(now  of  Miss.),  and  some  others.  These  divided  on  the  ques- 


RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER    ONE.  607 

tion.  Jenkins,  Miller,  Hill,  and  Harris  advocated  the  road ; 
Davis,  Merriwether,  Pryor,  and  Flournoy  opposed  it ;  the  latter 
in  one  of  the  most  humorous  as  well  as,  taken  all  in  all,  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  speeches  ever  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  I  have  no  doubt.  The  speech  occupied  all  of 
one  afternoon  and  part  of  the  next  morning's  session.  Never  can 
anybody  forget  that  speech  who  heard  it.  It  abounded  in  wit, 
sarcasm,  and  ridicule,  with  some  touches  of  real  eloquence  rarely 
surpassed.  The  House  was  kept  in  a  roar  of  laughter  for  hours. 
It  was  in  this  speech  that  he  gave  the  soubriquet  of  Snout  to  the 
road.  He  seemed  to  be  thinking  of  the  word  "main  trunk,"  fre 
quently  alluded  to  by  the  friends  of  the  measure,  when,  apparently 
at  a  loss  for  the  word,  he  said :  "  This  main — what  do  you  call  it, 
Mr.  Speaker?  This  great  snout,  I  believe."  His  whole  object 
seemed  to  be  to  show  that  the  entire  scheme  was  wild  and  vision 
ary — would  be  an  endless  waste  of  money  with  no  return.  Pryor 
took  the  same  course.  He  had  a  fine  voice,  fine  delivery,  and  at 
that  time  promised  to  become  a  man  of  high  position  in  the  State. 
He  hailed  from  Harris  county.*  He  spoke  of  the  road  as  "begin 
ning  nowhere  and  ending  nowhere,"  and  the  utter  impracticability 
of  building  a  railroad  "  over  mountains  too  steep  for  a  spider  to 
crawl  up."  This  speech  was  rich  of  its  kind  in  thought  and  illus 
tration.  Davis  opposed  it  because  of  the  immense  expense,  and 
acKocated  the  application  of  the  funds  at  the  command  of  the 
State,  to  the  establishment  of  common  schools.  Merriwether 
took  the  same  course,  and  really  was  the  leader  of  that  view.  He 
was  not  so  much  opposed  to  the  road  as  he  was  in  favor  of  doing 
something  else  with  the  public  monies.  Harris  and  Hill,  on  the 
contrary,  were  for  the  road.  The}'"  were  both  new  members,  I 
think,  and  spoke  with  ability.  A  little  incident  attending  Hill's 
speech,  I  shall  never  forget.  It  was  an  anachronism  in  a  figure, 
pardonable  in  an  extemporary  speech  by  a  young  orator,  but 
which  caused  some  merriment  at  his  expense.  He  was  winding 
up  with  some  flourish  which  I  do  not  recollect,  but  the  conclud 
ing  words- were  something  about  "  the  last  of  Romans  being  buried 
in  the  tomb  of  the  Capulets."  This  caused  a  laugh  in  the  circle 
near  him,  but  an  old  gentleman,  a  plain,  farmer-looking  member — . 
who  sat  some  distance  off,  noticing  the  laugh,  and  not  knowing  or 
understanding  the  cause  of  it,  inquired  what  it  was  he  said :  who 
did  he  say  was  dead  ?  Whereupon,  Flournoy  then  answered  him 
with  a  countenance  expressing  perfect  naivete  and  seriousness,  "He 
said  that  old  Mr.  Roman  was  dead,  and  buried  with  his  cap  on." 
This  greatly  increased  the  laugh.  Flournoj',  in  his  speech  I  have 
alluded  to,  also  gave  Harris,  who  represented  Baldwin,  a  rap  or 
two  which  brought  down  the  House.  Harris  had  spoken  before 
Flournoy.  He  is,  you  know,  not  only  a  very  able  man  and  a  very 
high-toned  gentleman,  but  has  a  very  peculiar  style  and  manner 
of  expression  when  he  is  in  earnest — thinks  but  little  of  money 
when  great  ends  are  to  be  obtained  by  its  proper  use.  He  had  on 
t . — . 

*  He  died  several  years  ago. 


608  KAILROAD    LETTER    NUMBER    ONE. 

several  occasions  spoken  of  the  insignificant  sum  of  so  and  so- 
many  hundred  or  thousand  dollars  set  forth  in  some  appropria 
tion  bills  he  had  advocated — compared  with  the  great  utility  of 
the  measures.  Such,  for  instance,  as  the  sums  required  for  the 
erection  of  an  executive  mansion  and  a  lunatic  asj'lum,  of  which 
measures  he  was  the  champion.  He  had  in  his  speech  on  the 
railroad  spoken  of  the  money  expended,  or  to  be  expended,  as  a 
small  matter  compared  with  the  greatness  of  the  work.  He  had 
also  a  measure  pending  for  the  incorporation  of  the  town  of  Mil- 
ledgeville,  then  not  as  large  and  flourishing  as  it  is  now,  as  the 
"  City  of  Milledgeville."  In  Flournoy's  notice  of  his  speech  on 
the  railroad,  he  took  occasion  to  dwell  upon  his  general  views 
about  appropriations.  The  small  and  insignificant  sum  in  such 
and  such  a  bill — the  small  and  insignificant  sum  in  another — and 
so  on,  alluding  with  particularity  to  each.  Then  he  touched  him 
off  about  his  bill  to  make  the  town  of  Milledgeville  a  city.  "  The 
city  of  Milledgeville  !"  said  he,  with  great  emphasis,  casting  his 
eye  out  of  the  window  and  surveying  the  prospect  in  an  inimita 
ble  manner.  "  Why,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  might  just  as  well  call  a 
thrip  a  dollar  !  and  you  might  as  well,"  continued  he,  "  undertake 
to  make  a  city  out  of  this  little  town,  with  its  gullies  all  over  it, 
like  the  wrinkles  of  premature  old  age  on  the  face  of  a  broken- 
down  rue,  as  to  make  a  railroad  across  the  mountain  passes  of 
Cherokee  !  The  very  insignificant  sum  of  four  million  dollars, 
sir,  could  do  neither ! !" 

This  will  give  you  only  a  very  faint  idea  of  some  of  his  thrusts, 
and  some  of  the  general  grounds  of  opposition  to  the  measure. 
Jenkins,  however,  was  Gordon's  right  hand  man  in  the  struggle. 
I  do  not  recollect  that  Miller  spoke  on  the  subject,  but  he  was 
active  in  conversation.  He  entered  the  legislature  for  the  first 
time  that  session ;  and  I  believe  continued  in  it,  either  in  the 
House  or  the  Senate,  until  his  death  last  year.  Twenty  years 
was  he  there.  The  first  session  he  spoke  but  seldom,  but  his 
worth  and  good  sense  were  well  known  very  early  after  his  en 
trance  on  that  theatre,  where  he  subsequently  acquired  such  a 
lasting  reputation  and  renown. 

But  Jenkins  had  been  there  before.  He  understood  the  rules 
well.  He  was  at  ease  and  perfectly  at  home.  No  man  could 
equal  him  in  debate.  He  was  fluent,  graceful,  and  elegant.  His 
manners  were  polished,  his  language  choice  and  select.  What 
ever  wit  he  exhibited  was  of  the  Attic  order.  His  temper  was 
completely  subject  to  his  control.  He  was  never  thrown  off  his 
guard — always  cool,  collected,  and  self-poised — and  I  have  often 
thought,  I  never  saw  a  better  balanced  man  in  every  respect  than 
he  is.  At  that  time  he  was  comparatively  young,  and  yet  I  have 
noticed  but  little  change  in  him  since.  He  took  a  large  and  com 
prehensive  view  of  the  subject,  and  without  his  aid  I  do  not  now 
see  how  Gordon  would  have  got  along  with  his  measure.  I  say 
his  measure  because  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  committee  who  re- 


RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   ONE.  b'09 

ported  it  and  had  it  specially  in  charge.  Besides,  as  the  demo 
cratic  party  was  in  the  majority,  it  was  according  to  parliamen 
tary  usage  and  custom,  that  the  heads  or  chairman  of  all  important 
committees  should  be  of  their  party.  The  measure,  therefore,  in 
this  sense  was  his.  He  reported  it,  and  was  responsible  for  its 
conduct  through  the  House.  But  as  I  have  said  before,  he  was 
not  only  godfather  of  it  in  this  sense,  but  one  of  the  master 
spirits  of  the  day  who  originated  it.  Jenkins  was  equally  enthusi 
astic  with  him.  These  two,  perhaps,  were  the  most  prominent 
men  in  the  House  who  threw  all  their  energy  into  it.  And  it 
would,  perhaps,  be  unjust  to  one  to  say  that  the  other  was  more 
efficient  in  effecting  its  passage.  They  occupied  opposite  sides  of 
the  House — Gordon  was  the  leader  of  the  democrats,  Jenkins  of 
the  State  rights  men.  Both  had  had  some  parliamentary  experience 
— as  members  of  the  same  body.  Gordon  was  several  years  the 
elder,  I  should  suppose.  But  the  most  striking  difference  between 
them,  was  in  their  speaking  or  oratory.  Jenkins  was  classic,  ornate 
and  diifuse,  Ciceronean.  Gordon  was  terse,  pointed,  clear,  short, 
and  emphatic.  His  manner  was  very  much  like  Mr.  Calhoun's. 
I  have  heard  them  both  often.  Their  gesticulations  were  very 
much  alike — and  their  powers  of  concentration  were  very  much 
alike,  also.  Mr.  Calhoun  could  say  more  in  a  given  time,  than 
any  man  I  ever  heard,  except  it  was  Mr.  Gordon.  He  made  no 
regular  set  speech  on  this  bill,  but  he  was  engaged  frequently  in 
skirmishes — answering  objections  in  the  midst  of  the  speeches  of 
others,  or  answering  questions  put  to  him  by  objectors.  On  these 
answers  he  was  always  signally  triumphant.  Mr.  Jenkins,  how 
ever,  made  an  elaborate  speech  on  this  subject.  I  can  give  you 
no  idea  of  it  at  this  late  day.  It  was  argumentative  in  a  great 
degree,  but  in  some  parts  he  indulged  in  passionate  declamation, 
exhibiting  the  highest  order  of  eloquence.  The  debate  lasted 
for  several  days — exactly  how  long,  I  do  not  now  recollect.  But  it 
was  the  longest  debate — the  most  protracted,  exciting,  and  inter 
esting  that  ever  occurred  in  the  course  of  my  service  in  the  Georgia 
legislature,  which  embraced  six  years  in  all,  five  in  the  House  and 
one  in  the  Senate.  As  to  the  part  I  took  in  it,  about  which  you 
make  inquiry,  I  can  say  but  little.  I  was  a  warm  advocate  of  the 
measure.  I  did  not  intend  to  speak  until  after  Flournoy's  volley. 
He  come  after  Harris,  Hill,  and  Jenkins,  our  big  guns,  and  after 
I  thought  the  argument  was  exhausted.  Fearing  that  he  had 
done  some  damage  to  the  cause,  I  ventured  to  attempt,  at  least, 
to  remove  some  of  the  rubbish  he  had  thrown  in  the  way.  It 
was  my  first  effort.  This  Avas  my  debut  on  the  boards  of  legisla 
tive  debate.  I  had  prepared  myself  with  all  statistical  informa 
tion  I  could  get  bearing  on  the  subject.  My  object  was  to  show 
the  great  utility  of  the  road  as  a  means  of  developing  our  up- 
country  resources,  and  as  an  ultimate  outlet  to  the  trade  and 
travel  of  the  great  Northwest.  I  have  the  notes  of  the  speech 
yet  I  showed,  as  I  thought,  from  undisputable  data,  that  the 
39 


610  RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   ONE. 

road  must  be  a  source  of  profit  to  the  State  at  a  cost  of  four 
million — the  estimate  then  assumed — besides  the  immense  en 
hancement  in  value,  of  the  lands  and  other  property  of  the  citi 
zens  along  the  line,  it  would  bring,  thus  greatly  augmenting  the 
aggregate  wealth  of  the  State.  This  might  be  put  down  at  at  least 
fifteen  million  dollars — by  my  figures  then  made — besides  bring 
ing  into  the  State  treasury  an  annual  net  income  of  at  least  three 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  much  more  than  would  meet  the  interest 
on  the  cost.  How  far  I  was  short  of  the  mark,  under  it  or  over 
it,  others  may  now  estimate  for  themselves. 

The  speech  being  my  first,  when  little  or  nothing  was  expected, 
did  me  great  credit,  and  aided  very  materially,  many  thought,  in 
securing  the  passage  of  the  bill.  This  I  think  I  may  say.  The 
vote  on  the  test  question  was  a  close  one.  I  forget  now,  but  I 
do  not  think  we  carried  it  by  more  than  four  majority.  After  the 
test  was  taken  and  decided  in  favor  of  the  survey  of  the  route 
(that  was  the  test  question),  we  gained  strength.  The  great 
battle  had  been  fought  and  the  victory  won.  And  as  we  look 
back  now  who  can  say  that  the  day  on  which  that  test  vote  was 
taken  and  decided  (by  as  small  a  majority  as  it  was)  was  not  the 
most  important  day  in  Georgia's  history  since  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century.  What  great  consequences  have  resulted 
from  that  vote  ?  It  was  the  date  of  a  new  era  in  our  annals.  It 
was  an  epoch — a  turning  point  in  our  career.  The  theme  you 
have  selected  for  your  lecture  is  not  only  a  good  and  appropriate 
one,  but  a  grand  and  noble  one,  well  calculated  to  inspire  the  souls 
of  young  Georgians  with  thoughts  and  ambition  of  a  high  order. 
That  ambition  which  looks  only  to  the  advancement  of  the  hap 
piness,  prosperity,  power,  glory,  and  renown  of  the  State.  But 
I  cannot  prolong  this  scrawl ;  I  fear  you  cannot  read  what  I  have 
written,  or  rather  scribbled,  already.  Indeed,  I  do  not  know 
that  I  have  given  you  what  you  desired.  But  as  the  day  is 
gloomy,  wet,  rainy,  cold,  and  sleety  out  doors,  I  have  kept 
writing  such  as  you  find  this  until,  I  doubt  not,  you  will  be  as 
weary  in  endeavoring  to  decipher  the  characters  used  as  my 
fingers  have  become  in  penning  them. 

Yours  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

PROF.  WM.  RUTHERFORD,  JR., 

Athens,  Ga. 

p.  S. — While  it  still  sleets,  freezes,  and  snows,  so  that  I  cannot 
send  my  letter  to  the  office,  I  must  add  a  few  words  by  way  of 
postscript. 

The  road  was  popular  in  183T.  This  year  we  had  Toombs  and 
George  W.  Crawford,  new  members  in  the  House,  strong  friends 
of  it.  Merriwether  also  became  a  warm  advocate  of  its  prose 
cution.  So  did  Flournoy  afterward,  and  others.  It  continued 


RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   TWO.  611 

popular  in  1838.  But  when  hard  times  came  in  1840,  1841,  1842, 
and  1843,  great  and  strong  opposition  grew  up.  The  road  was 
incomplete,  unfinished — an  attempt  was  made  to  sell  it.  This 
was  in  1843.  The  proposition  to  sell  was  made  by  Judge  Iverson, 
then  senator  from  Muscagee.  The  contest  was  close  and  doubtful, 
and  that  was  the  most  important  period  in  the  road's  history, 
except  the  one  of  its  first  undertaking. 

The  proposition  to  sell  was  lost  in  the  House  by  but  one  vote. 
Crawford  had  been  just  elected  governor.  He  had  exerted  all 
his  power  against  the  proposition  to  sell.  Jenkins  and  Toombs 
in  the  house  defeated  it  there.  Miller  was  in  the  Senate.  Bishop, 
Tamlin,  and  Smith,  of  the  Cherokee  country,  from  the  beginning 
were  untiring  and  efficient  friends  of  the  road.  I  allude  to  Wm. 
N.  Bishop,  Lewis  Tuinlin,  and  Wm.  Smith,  of  Rome.  So  was 
Mr.  McFarland,  of  Walker,  while  he  was  a  member. 

In  speaking  of  Gordon,  I  have  said,  that  he  was  usually  tri 
umphant  in  his  quick  replies  in  a  running  debate.  On  one  occa 
sion,  however,  it  was  thought  by  many  in  the  House,  that  Miller 
got  rather  the  better  of  him  in  this  respect.  Gordon  said  in  one 
of  his  animated  appeals,  that  he  "  believed  Miller  would  follow 

his  party  to  the  d 1."     Miller  replied  that  he  "  would  rather 

follow  any  party  to  the  d 1  than  to  lead  one  there."     This 

was  not,  by  the  by,  in  the  railroad  discussion.  I  give  it  only  as 
one  of  the  reminiscences  of  the  session  and  the^ parties.  But 
enough. 

A.  H.  S. 


RAILROAD  LETTER.     NUMBER  TWO. 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  MARCH  17,  1857. 

DEAR  SIR  : — In  my  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  upon  the  subject 
of  the  State  railroad,  I  referred  to  matters  essentially  in  pais, 
sketching  incidents  attending  the  passage  of  the  bill  authorizing 
its  construction,  which  exist  only  in  memory,  and  of  which  there 
is  no  record.  Upon  a  re-perusal  of  your  letter  of  inquiry,  it  has 
occurred  to  me  that  perhaps  you  wished  facts  of  a  different 
character,  and  such  as  more  properly  constitute  a  history  of  the 
work.  With  a  view  of  directing  your  mind  where  you 'can  find 
such,  rather  than  make  an  attempt  to  furnish  them  myself, 
allow  me,  in  addition  to  what  I  before  said,  now  further  to  state 
some  incidents  connected  with  its  origin  of  a  more  general  and 
public  character,  which  may  aid  you  in  your  investigation. 

The  subject  of  the  connection  of  the  valley  of  the  West  with 
the  southern  Atlantic  ports  by  railroad,  had  engaged  the  thoughts 
and  attracted  the  attention  of  men  of  enterprise  for  a  year  or 
two  before  1836— perhaps  as  early  as  1832.  The  subject  was 


612  RAILROAD    LETTER   NUMBER   TWO. 


alluded  to  in  the  newspapers  of  the  da}^  ;  but  the  prevailing  idea 
then  was  to  connect  Charleston  with  Cincinnati.  For  this  pur 
pose  a  railroad  convention  was  called  at  Ashville,  North  Carolina, 
The  time  that  convention  was  called,  or  rather  when  it  met,  I  do 
not  recollect.  But  one  with  the  same  object  was  called  at  Knox- 
ville,  Tennessee,  which  held  its  session  on  the  4th  day  of  July, 
1836.  To  this  convention  a  delegation  was  sent  from  Georgia  — 
whether  altogether  by  voluntary  associations  of  the  people  in  differ 
ent  places,  or  by  the  railroad  companies  then  chartered  b}^  the 
State,  I  cannot  now  state.  The  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Knoxville  convention  produced  a  very  favorable  impression  upon 
the  minds  of  our  people.  Still  Cincinnati  was  the  point  looked 
to  as  the  trans-mountain  terminus.  Governor  Schley,  in  his  mes 
sage  of  1836,  brought  the  subject  prominently  to  the  notice  of 
the  legislature,  and  urged  the  matter  as  one  wortiry  of  their  con 
sideration.  He  was  a  warm  advocate  of  the  measure.  The 
legislature  in  the  year  before  had  authorized  him,  I  think,  to  em 
ploy  an  engineer  to  report  upon  the  practicability  of  a  route  over 
or  through  the  Rabim  Gap.  He  had  appointed  General  Brisbane, 
of  South  Carolina,  to  that  office,  who  had,  up  to  the  time  of  the 
meeting  of  the  legislature,  in  November,  1836,  made  only  partial 
reconnoissances  for  the  localities.  The  appointment  was  made 
too  late  for  accurate  surveys,  with  costs  and  estimates,  to  be 
submitted,  by  the  meeting  of  the  legislature.  Meantime,  too,  a 
railroad  convention  was  called  in  this  State,  in  Macon,  which  as 
sembled  in  that  city  the  same  day  that  the  legislature  met  in 
Milledgeville.  The  object  of  that  convention  was  to  collect  in 
formation,  and  concentrate  public  opinion  upon  the  most  feasible 
route  for  a  connection  of  the  southern  Atlantic  coast  with  the 
West.  That  convention  was  a  large  one.  It  had  delegates  from 
d-11  sections  of  the  State,  and  had  amongst  its  members  several 
of  the  ablest  men  in  Georgia.  It  was  exclusively  a  Georgia  con 
cern,  I  think.  Its  labors  closed  with  nothing  more  pointed  or 
practical  than  making  a  strong,  urgent,  and  able  appeal  or  ad 
dress  to  the  legislature  then  in  session  to  undertake  the  work. 
This  memorial  was  presented  to  the  House  by  Mr.  Gordon  ;  and 
in  nothing,  purporting  to  give  a  history  of  the  State  road,  ought 
the  important  bearing  of  the  action  of  that  convention  to  be  over 
looked  or  omitted.  I  have  not  a  copy  of  the  memorial,  but  it 
was  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  you  may,  perhaps,  be  able  to  get 
a  copy.  It  was  written  with  great  ability,  and  was  not  without 
its  influence  on  the  minds  of  members  of  the  legislature.  It  was 
written,  I  think,  by  the  Hon.  Absolom  H.  Chappel  or  Judge  Ber- 
rien.  At  that  time  we  were  in  the  midst  of  a  prosperity  never 
perhaps  before  known  or  realized.  Cotton  was  bringing  a  high 
price,  and  property  of  every  description  was  comparatively  high. 
Speculations  of  all  kinds  were  rife.  The  act  providing  for  the 
distribution  of  the  surplus  revenue  of  the  United  States  amongst 
the  States  had  just  passed  Congress.  The  estimated  amount 


KAILBOAD   LETTEE   NUMBER   TWO.  613 

that  Georgia  was  to  get  under  the  act  was  about  a  million  and 
a  quarter  of  dollars,  I  believe — though  I  may  be  mistaken  in  this. 
I  speak  onty  from  memory.  It  was,  however,  large.  And  what 
was  to  be  done  with  the  money  ?  was  the  question.  The  friends 
of  internal  improvements  looked  upon  this  as  a  golden  op 
portunity  to  embark  the  State  in  some  public  work  permanently 
useful.  It  must  however  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  was  con 
siderable  diversity  in  opinion  amongst  them  as  to  the  character 
and  nature  of  the  enterprise  to  be  undertaken,  as  well  as  its 
location  and  direction.  Many  were  wedded  to  the  idea  of  tap 
ping  the  great  Northwest  through  the  proposed  Cincinnati  and 
Charleston  railroad,  by  a  branch  road  from  some  point  in  our 
State  crossing  the  Blue  Ridge  at  the  Rabun  Gap.  This  was  cer 
tainly  Governor  Schley's  idea  if  I  recollect  rightly.  Mr.  Gordon, 
on  the  other  side,  looked  toward  Ross's  landing,  now  Chatta 
nooga,  as  the  northwest  terminus  of  our  road.  With  him  Jen 
kins,  Miller,  and  most  of  us,  or  a  majority  of  those  in  favor  of 
the  undertaking,  concurred.  There  were  a  few  who  looked  still 
further  south  for  the  proper  line  of  location.  They  looked  to 
Memphis  as  the  ultimate  western  terminus,  and  thought  the  State 
road  ought  to  pass  through  Rome,  in  Floyd  county.  The  mid 
dle  route  was  the  one  adopted  in  the  bill  passed  in  1836,  and  the 
one  which  has  ever  since  been  adhered  to — the  one  on  which  the 
road  has  been  actually  built.  But  the  subject  was  not  suffered 
to  rest  with  the  action  of  1836.  Subsequently,  for  several  years, 
efforts  were  repeatedly  made  to  change  the  upper  line  of  the  road, 
giving  it  direction  through  Rome.  Little,  if  any  thing,  was  ever 
said  about  the  Rabun  Gap  route  after  1836 — I  mean  as  the  line 
of  the  road  undertaken  by  the  State  in  that  year.  I  told  you  in 
my  other  letter  that  the  test  vote  in  the  House  was  a  close  one — 
that  we  had  on  it  not  over  four  majority — that  was  my  recollec 
tion  at  the  time,  but  upon  reference  to  the  journals  I  find  it 
was  only  three.  The  vote  was  seventy-four  to  seventy-seven.  It 
was  on  a  motion  to  strike  out  certain  words  in  the  first  section  of 
the  bill.  The  bill,  as  originally  reported,  set  apart  a  sufficient 
portion  of  the  fund  to  be  derived  from  the  general  government 
under  the  distribution  act,  and  appropriated  the  same  for  the 
construction  of  the  road.  A  motion  was  made  to  strike  out  these 
words,  "  sufficient  portion,"  and  insert*  "  one  half."  This  motion, 
like  the  shaft  that  was  sent  into  Achilles'  heel,  was  aimed  at  the 
weakest  point  of  the  bill,  though,  unlike  that,  it  did  not  effect  its 
intended  object.  Three  majority  saved  it.  I  thought,  the  other 
da}7,  that  the  test  vote  was  on  ordering  the  survey  and  location 
of  the  road,  but  I  find  it  was  on  the  weakest  part  of  the  first 
section,  the  one  which  committed  the  State  to  its  construction. 
This  was  the  weakest  point,  because  there  were  a  few  in  the 
House  willing  to  vote  half  the  surplus  revenue  to  be  received  to 
internal  improvements,  and  the  other  half  to  common  or  public 
schools.  But  the  lines  in  the  House  between  the  friends  and  the 


614  RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   TWO. 

opponents  of  the  road  were  very  closely  drawn  and  clearly 
marked  by  the  vote,  and  the  majority  was  so  small  in  favor  of 
the  road  that  its  friends  became  satisfied  that  they  would  have 
to  yield  something  to  secure  its  passage.  This  was  finally  ac 
complished  by  our  all  voting  for  an  amendment  setting  aside  and 
appropriating  "  two  thirds"  of  the  fund  for  the  road.  In  this 
shape  it  passed  the  House.  In  the  Senate,  however,  this  was 
further  modified  by  saying  nothing  about  the  surplus  revenue, 
but  limiting  the  annual  appropriation  to  the  amount  set  forth  in 
the  law,  as  you  will  find  it,  $350,000,  and  under  the  conditions 
therein  expressed.  The  bill  finally  passed  the  House  by  a  vote 
of  one  hundred  to  fifty-four.  But  this  was  no  test  of  its  strength 
at  that  time.  It  is  true  it  had  gained  some  strength  after  the 
main  victory  on  the  first  struggle  at  the  outposts,  as  I  have 
stated ;  but  its  real  strength  was  tested  on  the  motion  to  send  it 
forthwith  to  the  Senate.  Many  had  voted  for  it  intending  to 
vote  for  a  reconsideration.  The  policy  of  these  was  to  lull  its 
friends  into  feelings  of  security,  and  to  take  them  by  surprise  on 
Monday  morning.  The  bill  passed  Saturday  evening.  But  as 
soon  as  it  passed,  Mr.  Harris,  of  Baldwin  (Hon.  Iverson  L.  Har 
ris),  moved  that  it  be  sent  forthwith  to  the  Senate.  This  took  the 
enemy  as  much  by  surprise  as  they  expected  its  friends  to  be 
taken  by  their  stratagem  on  Monday.  The  object  of  the  motion 
was  to  cut  off  the  possibility  for  a  reconsideration  on  Monday ; 
for,  by  parliamentary  law,  a  subject  cannot  be  reconsidered  that 
is  out  of  the  possession  of  the  House.  No  sooner,  therefore, 
was  this  motion  made,  than  a  call  was  had  for  the  ayes  and  noes. 
One  not  acquainted  with  legislative  tactics  would  naturally  sup 
pose  that  every  one  who  had  voted  for  the  bill  would  vote  to  send 
it  to  the  Senate.  But  not  so.  On  this  motion  the  vote  stood 
seventy-two  to  sixty-eight — only  four  majority  ;  and  but  for  the 
motion  then  made  and  carried,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  a 
reconsideration  would  have  been  effected  by  activity  on  the  part 
of  the  opponents  of  the  measure  between  that  time  and  Monday. 
For,  in  legislative  conflicts,  as  in  all  others,  my  experience  has 
taught  me  that  every  victory  gained  gives  new  courage  to  the 
doubtful  and  wavering. 

On  Monday  morning,  Mr.  Strickland,  of  Madison  county, 
moved  a  reconsideration,  notwithstanding  the  vote  of  the  House 
on  Saturday  sending  the  bill  to  the  Senate.  The  Speaker  (Mr. 
Joseph  Day,  of  Jones  county,  who  made  an  excellent  presiding 
officer,  who  was  familiar  with  the  rules,  and  who  had  great  dig 
nity  of  person,  accompanied  with  an  urbanity  of  manner  unsur 
passed  by  any  I  ever  saw  in  that  chair,  unless  I  except  Mr.  Jen 
kins)  "  decided  the  motion  to  be  out  of  order,  the  House  having 
by  their  order  of  Saturday  placed  the  same  out  of  the  reach  or 
possession  of  the  House."  Mr.  Harris,  of  Newton  (John  Har 
ris,  now  of  Covington),  though  a  friend  of  the  bill,  appealed  from 
the  decision  of  the  chair.  The  Speaker's  decision  was  overruled — • 


RAILROAD   LETTER  NUMBER   TWO.  615 

the  vote  being  sixtj^-six  in  favor  of  the  decision,  which  was  clearly 
right,  and  seventy-five  against  it.  The  opponents  of  the  road 
saw  some  grounds  to  hope  from  this  vote.  Its  friends  grew  a 
little  alarmed.  The  question  immediately  recurred  upon  a  recon 
sideration.  Much  anxiety  was  manifested.  Dougherty  of  Troup, 
(Robert  Dougherty,  generally  known  as  Bob),  a  man  of  charac 
ter  and  influence,  had  come  in  since  Saturday,  and  he  was  known 
to  be  opposed  to  the  road.  He  was  absent  when  the  vote  was 
taken  on  Saturday.  He  was  a  great  accession  to  the  ranks  of 
the  opposition ;  and  as  our  column  had  been  broken  on  the  vote 
growing  out  of  the  decision  of  the  chair  on  the  point  of  order, 
we  felt  that  all  might  still  be  lost.  Some  kept  tally  as  the  names 
were  called  ;  both  sides  were  excited  to  the  highest  pitch.  The 
announcement  of  the  result  was  sixty-five  in  favor  of  reconsider 
ing,  and  seventy-six  against  it — eleven  majority  for  the  road. 
This  settled  the  matter  so  far  as  the  House  was  concerned.  Deep 
chagrin,  disappointment,  and  mortification,  were  evinced  on  one 
side,  while  joy  and  exultation  were  indulged  in  on  the  other.  This 
feeling  on  both  sides  was  greatly  increased  by  the  loud  applause 
with  which  the  galleries  responded.  It  is  a  theme  of  pleasant 
reflection  at  this  day  to  call  up  the  recollection  of  remarks  and 
comments  then  freely  indulged  in  by  persons  according  to  their 
agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  action  of  the  House.  On 
the  one  side,  it  was  said  by  some  of  the  most  heated  of  the  mi 
nority  party  that  it  was  the  most  injurious  bill  ever  passed  by 
the  House,  not  excepting  the  Yazzo  fraud ;  that  if  the  Senate 
passed  it,  and  it  became  a  law,  the  people  would  rise  up  and  burn 
it  with  fire  drawn  down  from  heaven.  On  the  other  side,  it  was 
boasted  of  as  the  greatest  enterprise  of  the  age  ;  that  the  memo 
ries  of  those  who  projected  it  and  carried  it  through  would  be 
as  honored  in  the  historj^  of  the  State  as  the  memory  of  DeWitt 
Clinton  in  New  York ;  that  the  work  would  do  for  Georgia  at 
the  south  what  the  Erie  canal  had  done  for  New  York  at  the 
north. 

In  my  letter  of  the  14th,  I  mentioned  several  who  had  acted 
conspicuous  parts  in  the  debate  both  for  and  against  the  road.  I 
stated  I  had  forgotten  whether  Henry  G.  Lamar  was  in  the  House 
that  year  or  not.  I  am  now  satisfied  that  he  was  not.  John  B. 
Lamar  was  in,  from  Bibb,  and  he  was  a  decided  friend  of  the 
measure.  I  should  also  mention  Kelly,  of  Houston,  as  a  true 
friend  of  it.  He  is  now  dead.  He  afterward  was  the  first  re 
porter  to  the  Supreme  Court.  And  among  the  ablest  of  the  friends 
of  the  road  who  afterward  came  into  the  House,  none  were  more 
conspicuous  than  Absalom  H.  Chappel.  Among  the  most  noted 
in  the  House  opposed  to  it,  whose  names  I  have  not  mentioned i 
were  Burns  of  Jackson,  Easley  of  Walton,  Strickland  of  Madi 
son,  and  Cone  of  Camden.  These  men  were  all  characters  in 
themselves,  marked  men  in  their  day.  They  were  each  members 
of  the  House  for  several  years.  They  were  all  without  education 


616  RAILROAD    LETTER   NUMBER   TWO. 

except  the  commonest  rudiments,  and  yet  all  of  them  took  an 
active  part  in  what  was  done.  They  all  spoke  when  the  spirit 
was  upon  them ;  and  though  their  grammar  was  not  good,  yet 
their  logic  was  not  alwa}Ts  without  point.  Their  greatest  error 
lay  in  their  assumed  premises.  No  one  could  question  their 
patriotism.  The  homely,  sturdy  virtues  of  plain  farmers,  I  be 
lieve,  were  awarded  to  each. 

They  needed  cultivation,  and  that  enlarged  and  comprehensive 
view  of  things  so  essential  to  statesmanship  in  the  true  sense  of 
that  word,  and  yet  they  did  much  good  in  their  opposition  to 
many  schemes  which  those  better  educated  advocated,  and  which 
were  perfectly  wild  and  chimerical.  It  is  true  they  opposed  and 
perhaps  aided  in  defeating  many  things  that  would  have  advanced 
the  prosperity  of  the  State,  and  yet  no  one  can  say  that  they  did 
not  do  the  State  some  service.  Burns  was  a  militia  general. 
Cone,  of  Camden,  was,  I  think,  according  to  his  own  account  of 
himself,  a  cow  driver.  He  made  his  first  appearance  in  the  legis 
lature  in  1825,  at  the  extra  session  called  that  year  by  Governor 
Troup,  and  though  he  had  no  "  school  learning,"  yet  he  paid 
court  to  the  Muses.  When  some  dull  fellow  was  boring  the 
House  with  a  speech,  Cone  generally  occupied  himself  with  either 
taking  him  or  somebody  else  off  in  lines  of  ludicrous  rhyme,  which 
were  sent  round  for  the  amusement  and  merriment  of  the  House. 
Many  of  these  were  very  good  hits.  I  have  several  of  them  }ret. 
Strickland  spoke  often — so  did  Easley.  But  their  eloquence 
and  rhetoric  were  of  a  day  that  is  now  passed.  They  were  both 
farmers,  I  think.  One  of  the  most  pointed  things  I  ever  heard 
from  Strickland,  was  a  retort  he  made  upon  Robert  Dougherty, 
in  the  debate  on  the  bill  to  establish  the  Supreme  Court.  Strick 
land  was  utterly  opposed  to  it,  and  had  made  one  of  his  charac 
teristic  speeches  against  it.  Dougherty  replied  to  him,  and  did 
it  very  roughly.  In  winding  up,  he  said,  in  reply  to  the  remarks 
that  had  been  made  by  Strickland,  insinuating  that  the  court 
was  intended  to  favor  the  lawyers  as  a  class — that  he  was  no 
lawyer  ;  he  was  not  looking  to  the  interest  of  lawyers.  "  I  am," 
said  he,  "  Mr.  Speaker,  no  lawyer ;  though  I  did  try  to  be,  but 
couldn't.  I  am  nothing  but  a  farmer  myself." 

Strickland  arose,  and  very  coolly  said  : 

"Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Troup  need  not  have  in 
formed  the  House  that  he  was  no  lawyer,  though  he  says  he 
tried  to  be.  We  all  can  see  that  he  only  tried  to  be  what  ho 
couldn't."  B}r  the  by,  I  ought  to  say  what  all  who  know  Dough 
erty  are  well  apprised  of,  that  he  is  a  man  of  far  above  average 
ability.  He  was  the  youngest  brother  of  three,  Charles,  W  illiam, 
and  Robert,  all  famous  in  Georgia.  He  had  a  high  position  in 
the  House  as  a  gentleman  of  intelligence,  information,  ability 
and  usefulness.  He  had  a  great  influence  in  the  House,  and 
spoke  well.  What  he  said  about  being  or  not  being  a  lawyer  was 
strictly  true,  only  in  this :  He  was  not  then  practising.  He  had 


RAILROAD    LETTER   NUMBER   TWO.  617 

been  at  the  bar,  and  had  acquired  distinction  at  it.  Some  years 
«go  he  moved  to  Alabama,  where  he  was  put  upon  the  bench,  and 
-:ive  general  satisfaction  as  a  judge.  He  was  a  man  of  great 
humor — used  to  tell  more  amusing  anecdotes,  and  keep  crowds 
roaring  in  laughter  at  them,  longer  and  louder  than  any  one  in 
the  whole  circle  of  my  acquaintance.  His  fund  seemed  to  be  in 
exhaustible.  Indeed,  he  seemed  to  have  the  facility  of  extracting 
humor,  mirth,  and  fun,  out  of  any  thing  he  saw  or  heard.  The 
dryest  subjects  to  others  furnished  him  with  materials,  not  only 
to  laugh  himself  most  heartily,  but  to  make  others  laugh  also ; 
and  he  always  laughed  as  loudly  at  his  jokes  as  others  did.  One 
of  his  jokes  was  well  turned  on  him  by  Jenkins,  in  1839.  It  was 
what  was  well  known  at  the  time  as  the  "  Racket"  story.  It  was 
a  long  one,  as  he  told  it,  and  intended  to  take  off  a  man  in  the 
village  of  his  former  residence,  Watkinsville.  The  man  in  ques 
tion,  whose  name  I  forget,  had  a  dog  he  called  Racket.  Racket 
was  famous  in  the  town  for  his  size  and  mastiff-like  proportions. 
In  the  days  when  circuses  and  caravans  of  animals  were  not  so 
frequent  in  the  backwood  villages  of  Georgia  as  they  are  more 
recently,  one  of  these  travelling  menageries  made  its  way  to  Wat 
kinsville.  A  great  crowd  was  out  to  see  the  show.  The  town 
was  jammed  by  the  people,  men,  women,  and  children,  pouring  in 
from  the  country.  A  large  canvas  was  spread  to  keep  those 
from  seeing  who  would  not  pay.  The  elephant  was  there — the 
lion — the  tiger — the  hyena — and  all  sorts  of  monkies,  from  the 
baboon  down  to  little  "  Dandy  Jack."  Some  of  the  country  peo 
ple,  observing  the  force  with  which  one  of  the  larger  apes  shook 
a  cage  over  which  he  was  chained,  started  a  question  as  to  the 
relative  strength  of  these  animals  compared  with  other  animals, 
such  as  bears,  dogs,  etc.  This  man  of  the  town,  on  whom 
Dougherty's  anecdote  was  told,  listened  to  the  conversation 
awhile,  and  then  offered  his  opinion,  which  was,  that  his  dog, 
Racket,  could  whip  any  monkey  in  the  show.  The  "master  of 
the  ring,"  hearing  this,  stepped  up  and  said  that,  "that  there 
little  monkey,"  pointing  to  "Dandy  Jack,"  dressed  out  in  his 
"  riding  riggings,"  "  could  whip  any  dog  in  that  town."  Where 
upon  Racket's  master  proposed  to  bet  something  on  that.  The 
showman  took  the  bet.  Ten  dollars  were  staked.  The  crowd  all 
soon  felt  more  interest  in  the  fight  to  come  off  between  the  dog 
and  the  monkey  than  in  any  thing  else.  They  all  marched  out  to 
see  it.  The  master  of  Racket  grew  uneasy  lest  it  was  a  scheme 
to  entrap  him  in  damages.  "But,  suppose,"  said  he,  "the  dog 
kills  the  monkey ;  I  am  not  to  be  held  responsible,  stranger,  for 
the  'varmint,'  am  I?"  "  Oh,  no,"  said  the  showman.  So,  being 
satisfied  on  that  point,  he  called  up  Racket.  The  people,  coming- 
out  from  under  the  canvas,  formed  a  large  and  compact  circle 
in  the  square  where  the  fight  was  to  come  off.  Racket  stood  in  the 
middle  of  the  dense  crowd,  pressing  all  round  the  open  area,  in 
seeming  surprise  at  his  situation,  and  wonder  at  what  was  going 


618  RAILROAD    LETTER   NUMBER   TWO. 

to  take  place.  In  this  position  of  affairs,  the  showman  led  "  Dandy 
Jack''  in,  a  way  being  opened  for  him.  He  held  him  by  a  chain, 
and  led  him  up  in  the  rear  of  Racket,  who,  gazing  so  intently  on 
those  in  front  of  him,  was  paying  but  little  attention  to  what  was 
going  on  behind.  As  he  was  thus  standing,  and  without  further 
notice,  "  Dandy  Jack"  seized  Racket's  tail  in  his  mouth  and  gave 
it  a  knaw-knaw  or  two,  with  his  monkey  jargon.  Racket  turned — 
saw  what  it  was.  But  instead  of  making  fight,  with  one  yell  and 
a  bound,  he  cleared  a  way  through  or  over  the  whole  crowd  in 
front  of  him,  barking  and  yelling  as  he  went — looking  back — 
barking  and  yelling  as  far  as  he  could  be  seen  going  up  the  road 
toward  Athens.  The  crowd  shouted,  the  welkin  rung.  The 
showman  laughed.  But  no  word  for  some  time  escaped  from  the 
loser  of  the  ten  dollars.  He  seemed  deeply  absorbed  in  thought. 
He  had  seriously  feared  that  Racket  would  kill  the  monkey.  As 
for  the  ten  dollars,  he  had  considered  that  made,  certain.  The  re 
sult,  so  quickly  over,  and  so  contrary  to  his  expectations,  had  com 
pletely  astonished  and  bewildered  him.  He  stood  arms  "  a-kimbo," 
resting  on  his  hips,  looking  at  his  dog  as  he  ran.  At  length  he 
said,  partly  to  himself  and  partly  to  those  who  were  laughing  at 
him,  "  Who  would  have  thought  it  ?"  But  his  troubles  did  not 
end  there.  The  laugh  at  his  expense  and  the  loss  of  the  ten 
dollars  were  not  all.  Racket  was  a  favorite  dog.  He  was  a  pet 
in  the  family.  The  evening  came,  but  Racket  did  not  return. 
Night  came,  and  still  he  did  not  make  his  appearance.  What  had 
become  of  his  dog  he  could  not  imagine.  Had  he  lost  his  senses 
in  fright,  and  run  away  altogether  ?  He  went  out  and  whistled 
for  him,  and  called  him,  saying,  "  Here,  Racket ;  here,  Racket. 
Come  back,  Racket;  that varmint  is  gone." 

This  story  Dougherty  used  to  tell  with  inimitable  manner  and 
almost  incredible  effect.  Some  who  heard  him  tell  it  on  first 
acquaintance  would  designate  him,  on  speaking  of  him  afterward, 
as  the  "  Racket  story  man."  Some  called  him  "Racket." 

Now  the  turn  that  Jenkins  gave  the  story  was  this  :  In  1839, 
there  was  a  temperance  movement  in  the  State  known  as  the 
Flournoy  Petition — not  from  Samuel  W.  Flournoy,  of  whom  I 
wrote  the  other  day,  but  Josiah  Flournoy,  of  Putnam  county,  a  man 
of  great  celebrity  in  his  da}T.  He  was  a  man  of  good  sense,  good 
character,  considerable  wealth,  and  great  energy.  He  became  a 
sort  of  Peter  the  Hermit,  in  a  crusade  against  tippling  shops,  and 
the  retail  system  generally.  He  travelled  in  all  sections  of  the 
State,  addressed  the  people  everywhere  he  went.  Great  multi 
tudes  came  out  to  hear  him.  At  one  time,  he  seemed  to  be  cany- 
ing  every  thing  before  him.  He  had  a  petition,  which  he  got  all  to 
sign  he  could,  to  present  to  the  next  legislature,  asking  for  a 
law  to  abolish  the  retail  of  ardent  spirits  in  the  State. 

He  made  a  great  stir  amongst  the  people.  He  got  thousands 
upon  thousands  (exactly  how  many  I  do  not  now  recollect)  to  sign 
his  petition.  Amongst  others,  Dougherty  either  signed  it,  or  was 


RAILROAD   LETTER   NUMBER   TWO.  619 

supposed  to  have  signed  it.  He  was  a  candidate  for  the  legisla 
ture  that  year,  as  he  had  been  for  several  3rears  before,  and  had, 
I  believe,  never  been  beaten.  But  it  was  a  wise  piece  of  advice, 
that  a  minister  of  one  of  the  monarchs  of  Sweden,  is  said  to  have 
given  his  sovereign  some  centuries  ago — that  was,  "  never  to 
touch  his  people's  religion  or  their  drink,  if  he  would  have  an 
easy  time  on  his  throne."  Perhaps,  if  Dougherty  had  received 
this  advice,  or  had  known  as  much  before  he  favored  this  peti 
tion  as  he  did  afterward,  he  never  would  have  done  it.  How  that 
ma}r  be  I  do  not  know.  But  so  it  was  before  the  day  of  the  elec 
tion,  the  reaction  in  the  popular  mind  against  the  petition  was 
tremendous.  In  many  counties  it  was  a  test  question.  It  was 
so  in  Troup.  The  rights  to  drink  as  they  pleased,  and  how  they 
pleased,  and  when  they  pleased,  as  well  as  what  they  pleased,  was 
one  dearly  cherished  by  his  constituents.  Much  to  his  surprise 
and  the  regrets  of  his  friends  he  was  beaten  on  that  question. 
He  did  not  go  down  to  Milledgeville  that  session  as  he  had  usu 
ally  done  for  years.  No  one  could  have  been  more  missed  than 
he.  For  years  he  had  been  the  soul  of  wit,  fun,  and  humor.  It 
seemed  to  his  old  associates  that  there  could  hardly  be  a  session 
of  the  legislature  without  his  presence.  He  was  missed  in  the 
hall,  missed  at  the  hotel,  but  especially  missed  in  social  private 
circle  that  he  used  to  light  up  and  gladden  with  so  much  glee  and 
mirth. 

Amongst  those  old  friends  who  had  such  a  relish  for  his  com 
pany  and  jokes,  no  one  missed  him  more  than  Jenkins.  He  has 
some  skill,  too,  in  making  as  well  as  turning  jokes  himself.  For 
it  was  in  this  way  and  under  these  circumstances  that  the  thoughts 
occurred  to  him  to  "  Bucket  Bob,"  as  he  said.  That  is,  he  ad 
dressed  him  an  anonymous  letter,  beginning  thus  :  "  Dear  Racket 
— come  back  Racket,  that  varmint  Flournoy,  is  gone." 

Dougherty  got  the  letter,  and  understood  its  contents  well, 
but  missed  his  man.  He  supposed  Crawford  wrote  it,  and  retali 
ated  on  him  some  months  after  in  one  of  his  happiest  hits,  if  he 
had  but  hit  his  man.  But  this  I  cannot  now  give.  Indeed,  you 
are  in  a  mood  already  to  exclaim,  I  have  no  doubt,  "  what  has  all 
this  to  do  with  the  Railroad?"  why,  nothing  at  all,  I  say,  except 
to  show  something  of  the  character  of  those  who  made  it  as  well 
as  those  who  tried  to  keep  it  from  being  made,  that  is  all.  Dull, 
dry  history,  of  all  things,  is  the  dullest  to  me.  Substantial  facts 
in  history  are  like  the  solid  food  for  dinner.  They  are  the  essen 
tials,  without  which  the  meal  might  as  well  be  dispensed  with, 
and  yet  a  little  seasoning,  sauces,  and  "  what  nots,"  a  custard  or 
even  an  ice  cream  occasionally,  may  come  in  the  way  very  well 
in  setting  off  an  agreeable  entertainment. 

Now,  therefore,  after  this  digession,  to  return  to  the  important 
facts  in  relation  to  the  progress  of  the  road,  and  how  it  made  its 
way  along  after  it  was  started.  As  I  have  stated,  it  ma}'  be  proper 
to  state  that  at  first,  that  is,  in  1836,  its  management  was  hi- 


620  EAILKOAD    LETTER   NUMBER   TWO. 

trusted  to  one  superintendent  and  engineer.  Who  the  superin 
tendent  was  I  forget.  But  in  1831  this  feature  was  changed — a 
board  of  commissioners  was  created.  It  consisted  of  three, 
chosen  by  the  legislature.  The  first  board  consisted,  I  think, 
of  Col.  Samuel  Fams,  of  Walker,  Major  Joel  Crawford,  and  Col. 
Little,  of  Jackson.  Col.  Farris  was  senator  from  Walker,  I  believe, 
in  1836,  and  was  a  warm  supporter  of  the  road.  Major  Crawford 
ivent  to  Europe  to  procure  a  loan  by  a  sale  of  State  bonds,  but 
met  with  poor  success.  In  1841  the  board  was  abolished,  and  all 
the  duties  devolved  upon  a  disbursing  agent.  In  1843  the  entire 
management  of  the  road  was  given  to  the  governor,  and  one  chief 
engineer,  appointed  by  him.  But  all  this,  I  suppose,  you  are 
more  conversant  with  than  I  am.  My  last  term  in  the  legisla 
ture  was  in  the  Senate,  in  1842.  In  1843  I  went  to  Congress, 
where  I  have  been  ever  since.  I  was  at  Milledgeville  that  session, 
during  the  month  of  November,  and  watched  with  deep  interest 
the  progress  of  the  idea  started  to  abandon  the  road,  and  sell  it. 
That  was,  as  I  have  before  stated,  the  most  critical  and  impor 
tant  period  in  the  road's  history,  except  the  time  of  its  com 
mencement.  And,  as  I  have  mentioned  so  many  persons  who 
contributed  their  influence  and  aid  in  the  legislature  to  its  pas 
sage  (I  mean  the  House,  for  I  have  said  nothing  of  the  Senate), 
it  occurs  to  roe  that  I  should  not  omit  to  mention  one  whom  I 
have  not  yet  named — that  is  John  S.  Lewis,  now  of  Washington 
city — a  clerk  in  the  first  auditor's  office.  He  was  then  a  member 
from  Troup.  He  differed  from  his  colleague,  Dougherty.  He 
was  young  and  modest.  He  had  graduated  at  our  university 
some  years  before,  with  the  first  honor  in  his  class.  The  onl}' 
speech  I  remember  his  making,  in  1836,  was  in  favor  of  the  char 
ter  of  the  Georgia  Female  College,  of  Macon — the  first  institution 
of  the  kind — a  chartered  college  to  confer  degrees  or  diplomas 
on  women,  I  believe,  in  the  United  States,  or  perhaps  in  the 
world.  He  distinguished  himself  on  that  occasion.  He  was 
then  a  lawyer,  but  subsequently  abandoned  the  profession,  and 
has  been  a  clerk  in  Washington  for  more  than  ten  years.  I 
knew  he  was  a  zealous  friend  of  the  road,  and  I  have  heard  him 
say  that  he  drew  the  original  bill.  Mr.  Gordon,  I  know,  reported 
it.  Lewis  was  not  on  the  committee  of  internal  improvement, 
but  he  has  told  me  that  the  draft  of  the  bill  was  committed  to 
him,  and  he  drew  it.  I  mention  this  that  honor  may  be  given  to 
wThom  honor  is  due.  And  now  you  must  excuse  me  for  one  other 
personal  incident.  I  intended  to  mention  it  at  the  proper  place 
but  forgot  it ;  that  is  when  I  was  referring  to  the  character  of  Mr. 
Speaker  Day.  He  was  a  man  of  unusual  equanimity  of  temper, 
and  acted  with  great  impartiality  during  the  debate  on  the  road. 
His  fairness  and  forbearance  were  proverbial,  and  though  his  de 
cision  was  overruled  by  the  House,  no  one  doubted  his  strict  up 
rightness  of  intention.  Never  was  speaker  more  patient.  On  this 
quality  o;  trait  of  his  turns  what  I  have  to  say.  In  Samuel  W. 


SPEECH    ON   THE    ADMISSION   OF   OREGON.  621 

Flournoy's  two  days  harangue,  of  which  I  spoke  in  my  other 
letter,  the  House  was  frequently  uproarious.  It  was  with  extreme 
difficulty  that  order  could  be  preserved.  But  the  speaker  kept 
his  temper  throughout  the  whole.  In  the  winding  up  of  the  ses 
sion,  as  usual,  there  was  also  great  confusion.  But  the  speaker 
always  kept  his  temper. 

On  the  last  night,  Flournoy,  in  one  of  his  sallies,  b}T  wa^y  of 
compliment  to  him,  startled  the  House  by  the  announcement  of 
a  proposition  which  he  said  he  intended  to  move — that  was  to 
"amend  the  Bible."  He  said,  he  intended  at  the  proper  time  to 
move  to  strike  out  the  word  "Job"  wherever  it  occurred  in  the 
good  Book,  and  insert  in  its  stead  "Joseph  Day." 

I  will  bore  you  no  longer.  My  sincere  wish  is  that  you  may 
be  more  successful  in  getting  the  information  you  desire  from 
other  sources  than  }^ou  have  from  me. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 
PROF.  WILLIAM  RUTHERFORD,  JR.,  Athens,  Ga. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  OREGON. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

FEBRUARY  12,  1859. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  say  any  thing  that  will 
add  force  to  the  argument  already  made  in  behalf  of  the  admission 
of  Oregon.  It  is  my  purpose,  however,  to  contribute  what  I  can 
to  that  end ;  and  if  I  fail  in  my  wish,  it  will  be  because  my  ability 
is  not  equal  to  my  zeal.  Apart  from  considerations  of  public  duty 
and.  justice  to  the  people  claiming  this  admission,  there  is  another 
consideration  which  enlists  my  entire  energies  for  the  bill ;  that, 
sir,  is  the  opportunity  it  aifords  me,  as  a  Southern  man,  and  one 
acting  with  the  democratic  party,  to  show  the  groundlessness  of 
the  charge  made  last  year,  that  we  were  in  favor  of  putting  one 
rule  to  a  State  applying  with  a  slave-state  constitution,  and  an 
other  and  a  more  rigorous  rule  to  a  free-state  application ;  that 
we  required  a  larger  population  for  the  admission  of  a  State  not 
tolerating  African  slavery,  than  one  permitting  and  allowing  it. 
The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  ST ANTON],  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat,  has  reasserted  that  charge,  in  substance.  Sir,  I  repudiated 
it  when  it  was  first  made,  and  I  repudiate  it  now.  The  position 
of  Kansas  and  that  of  Oregon  are  totally  dissimilar ;  and  whatever 
consideration  of  duty,  looking  to  the  peace  and  quiet  of  that  coun 
try,  as  well  as  the  general  welfare,  may  have  induced  me  and  others 
to  put  the  population  restriction  upon  any  future  application  from 
Kansas,  like  considerations  of  duty,  of  a  higher  character,  acting 


622  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION"   OF    OREGON. 

as  we  now  are  under  existing  obligations  which  we  cannot  ignore, 
forbid  that  the  same  representative  ratio  rule  should  be  extended 
to  Oregon.  As  I  stated  in  my  opening  remarks,  under  existing 
compacts,  under  existing  laws  affirming  and  extending  what  all 
regarded  as  a  most  solemn  compact,  the  ordinance  of  1781,  it  is, 
in  my  judgment,  a  high  obligation  to  admit  Oregon  so  soon  as  she 
has  sixty  thousand  inhabitants. 

Now,  sir,  before  going  into  that,  I  wish  to  reply  to  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio  [Mr.  STANTON],  who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  If  I 
understand  him,  and  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
GOOCH],  who  asked  that  significant  question  of  the  delegate  from 
Oregon  and  senator  elect :  how  he  would  vote  in  the  Senate  on 
the  repeal  of  the  population  clause  in  the  Kansas  bill  of  last  ses 
sion  ?  both  of  them  would  be  willing  to  vote  for  the  admission  of 
Oregon,  provided  that  representative  ratio  required  of  Kansas 
should  be  repealed.  They  occupy  this  strange  position :  because 
the  democratic  party  did  Kansas  at  the  last  session,  as  they 
assume,  a  wrong,  they  will  do  Oregon  a  like  wrong  at  this  session, 
by  way  of  retaliation. 

Mr.  STANTON.  The  gentleman  misunderstands  me. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  cannot  be  interrupted.  I  have  heard  the  gen 
tleman's  argument ;  so  has  the  House ;  and  the  gentleman  and  the 
House  will  hear  mine.  Let  them  stand  together.  I  understand 
the  minority  of  the  committee  on  territories,  with  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  GROW]  at  their  head,  signify  a  like  wil 
lingness. 

Mr.  GROW.  No,  sir  ;  I  stated  distinctly  that  I  would  never  go 
for  the  clause  of  the  constitution  I  have  indicated. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Do  not  interrupt  me.  I  state  the  gentleman's 
position  as  it  appears  in  his  minority  report.  The  only  thing  he 
complains  of  in  it  is  the  discrimination,  as  he  calls  it,  in  the  Kan 
sas  conference  bill.  The  only  amendment  he  proposes  to  this  bill 
is  a  repeal  of  that.  Not  a  word  in  his  report  against  the  obnoxious 
clause  in  the  Oregon  constitution  against  negro  equality.  That 
he  passes  over,  and  evidently  seems  to  rest  his  entire  opposition 
to  this  bill  to  the  existing  law  in  reference  to  Kansas.  What  has 
brought  "  this  change  over  the  spirit  of  his  dream"  I  do  not  know. 
I  am  glad,  however,  to  see  that  there  is  a  number  of  the  other  side 
actuated  by  a  more  liberal,  a  juster,  and  a  more  magnanimous 
sentiment.  They  cannot  see  the  logic,  or  the  moral  of  the  position 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania ;  that  because,  in  his  assump 
tion,  this  side  of  the  House  did  wrong  last  session,  therefore  he 
will  do  wrong  this.  To  the  majority  on  that  side,  acting  with  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  I  would  put  the  question,  how  can 
two  wrongs  make  a  right  ?  If  it  were  granted  that  injustice  was 
done  Kansas,  how  can  that  be  righted  by  repeating  it  toward 
Oregon?  That  side  of  the  House  will  permit  me  to  tell  them  that 
by  their  votes  to-day  they  will  spike  every  gun  they  have  fired 
against  the  democratic  party  for  their  alleged  injustice  done  to 


SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION"    OF   OREGON.  623 

Kansas.  If  the  democratic  party  did  wrong  to  Kansas  (but  I 
shall  show  that  the  cases  are  totally  dissimilar),  the  republican 
party  seems  disposed  to-day  to  follow  suit,  and  do  the  same  wrong 
they  complain  of  to  Oregon.  If  they  are  sincere  in  their  belief, 
and  not  governed  solely  by  opposition  and  antagonism,  would  it 
not  be  the  wiser,  the  better,  the  .nobler,  and  more  statesmanlike 
course  for  them  to  come  forward  and  set  us  an  example  of  doing 
right,  as  the  two  gentlemen  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  THAYER  and 
Mr.  COMINS]  urged  them  yesterday  ? 

But,  sir,  the  cases  are  totally  dissimilar ;  the  clause  in  the  Kan 
sas  compromise  bill,  refusing  to  hear  smy  further  application  for 
admission  from  her  in  case  of  her  declining  to  come  into  the  Union 
under  her  then  application,  with  the  modification  of  her  land  pro 
position,  which  we  submitted,  until  she  had  a  population  equal  to 
the  representative  ratio,  may,  or  may  not  have  been  right,  accord 
ing  to  the  opinions  of  gentlemen.  The  policy  of  adopting  such  a 
general  principle  in.  all  cases  where  it  can  be  done,  may,  or  may 
not  be  right,  as  gentlemen  may  vary  in  their  opinions ;  but  that 
question  cannot  arise  in  the  case  of  Oregon.  We  are  foreclosed 
on  that  point  in  the  territorial  organic  act ;  and  I  appeal,  not  only 
to  this  side  of  the  House,  but  to  every  side,  and  ask  how  they  can 
get  round  that  obligation  in  the  territorial  bill  of  Oregon,  of  1848, 
which  declares  solemnly  that  all  the  guarantees,  privileges,  and 
rights  secured  to  the  people  of  the  northwest  territory,  should  be 
extended  to  the  people  of  Oregon  ?  The  words  of  the  act  are : 

"SRC.  14.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  inhabitants  of  said  terri 
tory  shall  be  entitled  to  enjoy  all  and  singular  the  rights,  privileges,  and 
advantages,  granted  and  secured  to  the  people  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio  by  the  articles  of  compact  con 
tained  in  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of  said  territory,  on  the  13th 
day  of  July,  1787,  and  shall  be  subject  to  all  the  conditions,  restrictions, 
and  prohibitions,  in  said  articles  of  compact  imposed  upon  the  people  of 
said  territory.'' — Statutes  at  Large,  volume  9,  page  329. 

And  what  were  those  rights  and  privileges  guaranteed  to  the 
people  in  the  northwest  territory  hereby  secured  and  guaranteed 
to  the  people  of  Oregon  ?  Here  they  are : 

"And  whenever  any  of  the  said  States  shall  have  sixty  thousand  free 
inhabitants  therein,  such  State  shall  be  admitted  by  its  delegates  into  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States, 
in  all  respects  whatsoever ;  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  form  a  permanent 
constitution  and  State  government :  Provided,  The  constitution  and  gov 
ernment  so  to  be  formed  shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  to  the 
principles  contained  in  these  articles ;  and  so  far  as  it  can  be  consistent 
with  the  general  interests  of  the  confederacy,  such  admission  shall  be  al 
lowed  at  an  earlier  period,  and  when  there  may  be  a  less  number  of  free 
inhabitants  in  the  State  than  sixty  thousand." — Fifth  Article  Ordinance, 
1787,  Statutes  at  Large,  volume  1,  page  53. 

No  such  guarantee  as  this  was  ever  given  to  the  people  of  the 
territory  of  Kansas ;  if  there  had  been,  that  representative-ratio 
feature  could  not  have  been  put  in  the  conference  bill  without  a 


624  SPEECH    ON   THE    ADMISSION   OF    OREGON. 

violation  of  plighted  faith.  And  is  there  any  inconsistency  on  this 
side  of  the  House  in  adopting  the  representative-ratio  principle, 
wherever  it  can  be  done,  and  still  maintaining  good  faith  where 
previous  obligations  prevent  ?  Oregon  is  the  only  territory  to 
which  this  previous  obligation  to  admit  with  sixty  thousand  in 
habitants  applies.  Hers  must  be  an  exceptional  case  in  any  gen 
eral  rule  that  it  may  be  deemed  advisable  to  adopt  for  all  the 
other  territories  for  the  future.  Kansas  stands  in  a  position  to 
take  her  place  with  all  the  others,  except  Oregon,  without  any  just 
cause  of  complaint.  Whether  such  general  rule  be  wise  and  proper, 
is  not  now  the  question  ;  nor  whether  its  application  to  Kansas  at 
the  last  session  was  right  or  wrong ;  the  question  before  us  at 
this  time,  is  simply  whether  we  will  discharge  an  existing  obliga 
tion? 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER],  who  made 
one  of  the  minority  reports,  argues  that  the  compact  of  1787,  ex 
tended  to  Oregon  by  act  of  1848,  was  not  in  the  nature  of  an  en 
gagement  with  the  people  of  a  territory,  but  with  a  State.  The 
language,  he  says,  is,  "whenever  any  of  said  States,"  etc.  Mr. 
Speaker,  what  makes  a  State  ?  Is  it  boundary  ?  is  it  limits  ?  is  it 
rivers?  is  it  parallels  of  latitude?  Sir,  people  make  States.  His 
argument,  to  my  mind,  has  no  force.  The  territory  was  defined, 
and  the  compact  entered  into  with  the  people,  with  the  inhabitants ; 
and  that  compact  was,  that  as  soon  as  they  had  sixty  thousand 
free  inhabitants,  they  were  to  be  entitled  to  admission  as  a  State ; 
and  further,  so  far  as  it  can  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest, 
such  admission  shall  be  allowed  with  a  less  number  than  sixty 
thousand  inhabitants.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  ;  nor  are  we 
without  some  lights  as  to  a  proper  construction  of  these  words. 
It  is  the  same-identical  guarantee  that  was  extended  to  Tennessee 
in  It90;  and  how  was  this  language  interpreted  by  those  who 
made  the  compact  ?  How  was  it  construed  by  the  great  lights  of 
the  old  republican  party  ?  This  identical  question  came  up  on  the 
admission  of  Tennessee,  the  gentleman's  own  State. 

The  debate  on  that  question  was  referred  to  yesterday.  There 
is  no  dodging  the  question — no  evading  it.  The  question  here,  so 
far  as  population  is  concerned,  is  the  same  as  that  on  the  admis 
sion  of  Tennessee.  The  only  fact  in  issue  now  before  us,  is  the 
fact  that  was  in  issue  then.  It  is  not  whether  the  proposed  State 
has  ninety  thousand  or  one  hundred  thousand,  but  simply  whether 
it  has  sixty  thousand  inhabitants.  I  will  not  go  over  the  argu 
ment  to  show  that  it  has.  I  am  satisfied  that  there  are  over  sixty 
thousand  inhabitants  in  Oregon.  I  am  well  satisfied,  from  the 
evidence  I  cited  the  other  day,  that  there  are  over  one  hundred 
thousand.  There  were  forty-three  thousand  and  upward  in  1855, 
as  shown  by  an  imperfect  census.  Five  years  before  there  were 
only  ten  thousand.  In  five  years  they  had  increased  four-fold. 
With  a  proportionate  increase  there  would  be  now  one  hundred 
and  thirty  thousand  and  upward.  But  even  suppose  the  increase 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OREGON.  625 

had  been  partially  retarded ;  tlie  other  evidence  shows  there  mu^t 
be  over  one  hundred  thousand.  The  official  report  shows  personal 
property  to  the  amount  of  $22,000,000.  Suppose  the  people  of 
Oregon  to  be  worth  $200  per  capita  of  personal  property — which 
is  more  than  any  State  in  the  Union — there  would  be  one  hundred 
and  ten  thousand  inhabitants.  I  think  the  per  capita  estimate  of 
personal  property  at  $200  is  too  high  for  Oregon.  In  Georgia, 
where  the  wealth  per  capita  is  greater,  as  I  showed  the  other  day, 
than  in  any  other  State  in  the  Union,  it  is,  including  real  and 
personal  estate  together,  $534  for  the  entire  population.  The 
average  in  the  United  States  is  something  over  $350.  Place  it  at 
$150  in  Oregon  for  personal  property  alone  (for  they  own  no  real 
estate  there — no  land  patents  have  yet  issued),  and  the  population 
will  be  over  one  hundred  and  thirty  thousand.  These  facts  satisfy 
me  that  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  people  there. 
No  man  can  doubt,  it  seems  to  me,  that  there  are  over  sixty  thou 
sand  ;  and  that  is  the  question. 

Then,  sir,  in  the  debate  referred  to  on  the  admission  of  Ten 
nessee,  what  said  Mr.  Matlison  on  that  point? 

"  The  fact  of  population  was  the  only  necessary  one  ;  and  would  gentle 
men  be  satisfied  with  no  other  method  of  ascertaining  it  but  such  as  they 
themselves  should  direct?" 

He  went  on:  • 

"  If  there  were  the  stipulated  number  of  inhabitants,  that  territory 
could  not  be  denied  its  claim  of  becoming  a  State  of  the  Union  without  a 
violation  of  rights." 

Again,  he  says  that — 

"  He  himself  has  no  doubt  on  the  subject;  the  evidence,  was  sufficient 
and  satisfactory." 

And  again  he  said  : 

"  But  he  thought,  where  there  was  a  doubt,  Congress  ought  to  lean 
toward  a  decision  which  would  give  equal  rights  to  every  part  of  the 
American  people." 

He  said  there  was  no  doubt  on  his  mind  that  there  were  sixty 
thousand  people  there  ;  and  that,  under  the  compact,  they  were 
bound,  from  all  the  facts  he  could  gather,  to  admit  the  State. 

How  can  gentlemen  escape  that  ?  Mr.  Macon,  a  gentleman 
who  occupied  a  high  position  in  the  republican  party  of  that 
day — not  the  party  of  modern  republicans,  but  of  good  old 
republicans  of  the  Jeffersonian  school — one  of  the  shining  lights 
of  the  House,  whose  name  will  go  down  to  history  and  live  as 
long  as  the  names  of  the  founders  of  the  republic,  said : 

"The  question  before  the  committee  was  on  admitting  the  territory  to 
be  a  State  in  the  Union.  There  appeared  to  him  only  two  things  as 
necessary  to  be  inquired  into.  First,  was  the  new  government  repub 
lican?  It  appeared  to  him  to  be  so.  Second,  were  there  sixty-thousand 
inhabitants  in  the  territory  ?  It  appeared  to  him  there  were ;  and  if  so, 
40 


626  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OREGON. 

their  admission  as  a  State  should  not  be  considered  as  a  gift,  but  as  a 
right." 

Again,  Mr.  Gallatin  said  he — 

Was  of  opinion  that  the  people  of  the  southwestern  territory  became 
ipso  facto  a  State  the  moment  they  amounted  to  sixty -thousand  free  inhab 
itants  ;  and  that  it  became  the  duty  of  Congress,  as  part  of  the  original 
compact  to  recognize  them  as  such,  and  to  admit  them  into  the  Union, 
whenever  they  had  satisfactory  proof  of  the  fact." 

I  cannot  dwell  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  It  is  no  question 
of  ninty-three  thousand  here.  It  is  no  question  of  what  is  the 
ratio  in  other  territories.  It  is  no  question  of  Kansas  discrimi 
nation.  It  is  the  simple,  naked  question  of  fulfilling  obligations. 
That  is  the  whole  of  it.  I  have  no  doubt  that  she  has  sixty- 
thousand  ;  and  every  man  upon  this  floor  so  believing,  according 
to  this  authority,  is  bound  to  vote  for  her  admission.  Will  you 
doit? 

But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  STANTON]  complains  of  the 
constitution  of  Oregon.  He  complains  of  that  article  which  de 
nies  political  equality  to  the  African  Ace  ;  to  that  part  which 
excludes  negroes  from  voting ;  which  prevents  them  from  exer 
cising  the  rights  of  citizenship  ;  especially  that  which  denies  them 
the  right  to  maintain  an  action  in  their  courts.  The  Topeka  con 
stitution  of  Kansas,  which  that  gentleman  favored  in  1856,  ex 
cluded  free  negroes  entirely  from  the  territory  of  Kansas. 

Mr.  GROW.  I  will  correct  the  gentleman.  The  Topeka  consti 
tution  did  not  exclude  free  negroes  from  Kansas ;  but  the  ques 
tion  was  submitted  to  the  people,  as  instructions  to  the  legisla 
ture,  to  pass  an  act  of  that  character. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  And  a  large  majority  of  the  gentleman's  friends 
who  adopted  the  constitution,  voted  to  give  the  instructions. 

Mr.  GROW.     I  make  no  point  upon  that. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  And  those  who  profess  to  be  the  exclusive 
friends  of  negroes,  as  they  now  do,  so  far  as  that  constitution 
was  concerned,  voted  to  banish  them  forever  from  the  State,  just 
as  Oregon  has  done.  Whether  this  banishment  be  right  or  wrong, 
it  is  no  worse  in  Oregon  than  it  was  in  Kansas.  But,  on  the 
score  of  humanity,  we  of  the  South  do  not  believe  that  those  who, 
in  Kansas  or  Oregon,  banish  this  race  from  their  limits,  are  better 
friends  of  the  negro  than  we  are,  who  assign  them  that  place 
among  us  to  which  by  nature  they  are  fitted,  and  in  which  they 
add  so  much  more  to  their  own  happiness  and  comfort,  besides  to 
the  common  well-being  of  all.  We  give  them  a  reception.  We 
give  them  shelter.  We  clothe  them.  We  feed  them.  We  pro 
vide  for  their  every  want,  in  health  and  in  sickness,  in  infancy 
and  old  age.  We  teach  them  to  work.  We  educate  them  in  the 
arts  of  civilization  and  the  virtues  of  Christianity,  much  more 
effectually  and  successfully  than  you  can  ever  do  on  the  coasts 
of  Africa*.  And,  without  any  cost  to  the  public,  we  render  them 
useful  to  themselves  and  to  the  world.  The  first  lesson  in  civili- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OREGON".  627 

zation  and  Christianity  to  be  taught  to  the  barbarous  tribes, 
wherever  to  be  found,  is  the  first  great  curse  against  the  human 
family — that  in  the  sweat  of  their  face  they  shall  eat  their  bread. 
Under  our  system,  our  tuition,  our  guardianship  and  fostering 
care,  these  people,  exciting  so  much  misplaced  philanthrop}7, 
have  attained  a  higher  degree  of  civilization  than  their  race  has 
attained  anywhere  else  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  Topeka 
people  excluded  them  ;  they,  the  like  neighbors  we  read  of,  went 
round  them ;  we,  the  like  good  Samaritans,  shun  not  their 
destitution  or  degradation — we  alleviate  both.  But  let  that  go. 

Oregon  has,  in  this  matter,  done  no  worse  than  the  gentle 
man's  friends  did  in  Kansas.  I  think  she  acted  unwisely  in  it — 
that  is  her  business,  not  mine.  But  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  STANTON]  questions  me,  how  could  a  negro  in  Oregon  ever 
get  his  freedom  under  the  constitution  they  have  adopted  ?  I 
tell  him,  under  their  constitution  a  slave  cannot  exist  there.  The 
fundamental  law  is  against  it.  But,  he  asks,  how  could  his  free 
dom  ever  be  established,  as  no  free  persons  of  color  can  sue  in 
her  courts  ?  Nether  can  they  in  Georgia ;  still  our  courts  are 
open  to  this  class  of  people,  who  appear  by  prochein  ami  or 
guardian.  jSTor  is  there  any  great  hardship  in  this  ;  for  married 
women  cannot  sue  in  their  own  names  anywhere  where  the 
common  law  prevails.  Minors  also  have  to  sue  by  guardian  or 
next  friend.  We  have  suits  continually  in  our  tribunals  by  per 
sons  claiming  to  be  free  persons  of  color.  They  cannot  sue  in 
their  own  names,  but  by  next  friend.  They  are  not  citizens  ;  we 
do  not  recognize  them  as  such  ;  but  still  the  courts  are  open ;  and 
just  so  will  they  be  in  Oregon,  if  the  question  is  ever  raised. 

Mr  REAGAN.  By  the  laws  of  Texas,  free  negroes  are  prohibited 
from  residing  in  that  State,  and  hence  have  no  right  to  sue  in  her 
courts  ;  and  yet  the  courts  there  have  entertained  jurisdiction  of 
suits  for  the  liberation  of  free  negroes,  and  I  have  assisted  in  the 
prosecution  of  such  suits,  in  which  they  were  declared  free  under 
writs  of  habeas  corpus. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  that  the 
constitution  of  Texas  is  similar  to  this,  and  yet  that  her  courts 
are  opened  just  as  I  stated  in  reference  to  Georgia;  and  that  he 
himself  has  assisted  free  negroes  in  the  courts  of  Texas  to  obtain 
their  rights.  There  can  be  no  difficulty  upon  that  score.  Let 
me  say  to  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  not  to 
lay  the  flattering  unction  to  their  souls  that  they  can  escape  by 
such  a  pretext  as  that. 

But  it  was  intimated  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  that  last 
year  we  voted  to  admit  Kansas  as  a  slave  State  with  a  view  of 
getting  two  democratic  senators,  and  that  our  object  is  the 
same  now  in  regard  to  Oregon.  Sir,  in  this  he  is  mistaken.  We 
stood  then,  as  now,  upon  principle.  Had  Kansas  been  admitted 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  all  of  us  knew  that  the  proba 
bilities  were,  that  two  republican  senators  would  have  been 


628  SPEECH    ON    THE   ADMISSION   OF    OREGON. 

elected.  Nor  was  the  large  democratic  vote  in  the  Senate,  soon 
after,  upon  this  bill  for  the  admission  of  Oregon,  based  upon  any 
such  idea  as  he  intimated.  It  could  not  have  been.  When  this 
bill  passed  the  Senate,  it  was  not  known  what  sort  of  senators 
would  be  elected  there,  any  more  than  it  was  as  to  Kansas.  The 
election  in  Oregon  had  not  been  heard  from.  It  was  a  hot  con 
test.  And  at  the  election  which  afterward  came  off,  the  member 
who  was  returned  to  this  House,  was  elected  by  only  sixteen 
hundred  majority. 

Under  these  circumstances,  how  can  the  gentleman  attribute 
such  motives  to  the  action  of  democratic  senators  ?  Where  is 
the  slightest  evidence  for  such  an  imputation  ?  Maybe  the  gen 
tleman  attributes  to  others  the  motives  by  which  he  himself  is 
governed — that  is,  a  wish  to  bring  in  the  State  under  political 
auspices  favorable  to  his  own  view  of  public  policy.  Maybe  he 
thinks,  by  rejecting  this  constitution,  the  State  may  come  in 
under  a  republican  instead  of  a  democratic  banner ;  for  he  said 
her  admission  was  only  a  question  of  time.  I  will  not  say  that 
this  is  his  object  in  opposing  this  bill ;  but  I  do  say,  for  myself, 
that  I  am  governed  by  no  such  motives  as  he  has  intimated.  I 
will  vote,  whenever  a  State  comes  here  with  a  constitution  repub 
lican  in  form,  and  with  an  obligation  resting  upon  me  to  vote  for 
her  admission,  as  this  does,  for  her  admission,  irrespective  of  what 
may  be  the  political  cast  of  her  senators  and  members  elect.  I 
will  never  do  wrong  that  right  may  afterward  come  from  it. 
Wrong  does  not  produce  such  fruits.  What  you  plant  and  sow, 
that  you  reap.  I  will  never  commit  an  acknowledged  error, 
hoping  that  good  will  come  of  it.  Good  ends  never  justify  wrong 
means,  according  to  my  code  of  morals.  Honest}^  is  the  best 
policy  in  all  things.  Perhaps  most  of  those  on  the  other  side  of 
the  House  who  go  against  this  bill,  do  so  barely  to  be  in  opposi 
tion.  To  such  I  would  say,  what  I  once  said  to  a  gentleman  in 
my  district.  When  I  was  going  to  address  the  people  at  -a  par 
ticular  place,  meeting  him  on  the  way,  I  asked  him  if  he  was 
going  up  to  the  court  house  ?  He  said  no  ;  that  I  was  going  to 
speak,  and  that  he  only  wanted  to  know  what  side  I  was  upon  to 
be  against  it.  I  said  "  that  is  the  reason  you  are  always  in  the 
minority  ;  you  give  me  choice  of  sides  upon  all  questions,  and  of 
course  1  take  the  best."  [Laughter.]  Would  it  not  be  well  for 
gentlemen  on  that  side  to  consider  the  point,  barely  as  a  matter 
of  political  or  party  tactics  ?  That  gentleman  was  so  well  pleased 
with  the  remark  that  he  went  and  heard  me  on  the  occasion 
alluded  to,  and  from  that  day  to  this  has  never  failed  to  vote  for 
me.  If  the  opposite  side  will  allow  me,  I  will  say  to  them  it  is 
bad  policy  in  any  party  to  oppose  every  thing  barely  for  opposi 
tion  sake.  Let  me  entreat  them  not  to  oppose  this  bill — as  some 
of  them  do,  I  fear — barely  because  democrats  vote  for  it.  By 
this  course,  you  give  us  choice  of  sides  in  a  great  issue  of  right. 

One  word  further  upon  another  subject,  and  I  call  the  special 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OREGON.  629 

attention  of  the  House  to  it.  It  is  the  objection  raised  to  the  con 
stitution  of  Oregon  on  account  of  the  alien  suffrage  feature  in  it. 
The  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER,]  in  his  report, 
quotes  a  part  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  bearing  upon 
the  constitutional  power  of  a  State  so  to  regulate  suffrage  within 
her  own  limits,  but  stops  right  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence.  I 
will  read  first  the  extract  quoted  by  the  gentleman — italics  his — 
and  then  read  the  whole  sentence,  as  it  stands  in  Chief  Justice. 
Taney's  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case : 

"  The  constitution  has  conferred  on  Congress  the  right  to  establish  a 
uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  this  right  is  evidently  exclusive,  and 
has  always  been  held  by  this  court  to  be  so.  Consequently,  no  State, 
since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  can,  by  naturalizing  an  alien,  invest 
him  with  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  a  citizen  of  a  State  under 
the  Federal  government,"  etc. 

There  the  gentleman  stops,  with  the  sentence  unfinished,  at  a 
comma.  The  Chief  Justice  goes  right  on  with  these  words — 

'•  although  so  far  as  the  State  alone  was  concerned,  he  would  undoubtedly 
be  entitled  to  the  rights  of  a  citizen,  and  clothed  with  all  the  rights  and 
immunities  which  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  attached  to  that 
character." 

In  this  the  Supreme  Court  says,  and  says  truty,  that  no  State 
can  make  an  alien  by  birth  a  citizen  of  the  United  States — that  is 
the  exclusive  right  of  Congress;  but  that  each  State  may  clothe 
an  alien  with  all  the  privileges  and  rights  they  see  fit,  within 
their  own  jurisdiction  and  limits.  The  right  of  suffrage,  the 
right  to  declare  who  shall  vote  at  elections,  is  expressly  reserved 
in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  to  each  State.  This 
government  cannot  interfere  with  that  power.  It  is  the  last 
right  I  would  have  the  States  to  surrender ;  for  upon  it  rest  all 
the  great  bulwarks  of  State  rights ;  and,  should  it  ever  be  sur 
rendered,  no  vestige  of  State  rights  would  remain.  , 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  The  comments  of  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  upon  that  portion  of  my  report  would  produce  the 
impression  that  I  have  acted  unfairly. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  do  not  say  that.  I  cannot,  however,  be 
interrupted.  I  have  barely  time  sufficient — 

Mr.  ZOLLIPOFFER.  But  let  me  make  this  statement.  I  will  not 
be  two  minutes. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Be  brief.  I  will  give  you  two  minutes,  but  no 
more. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  I  was  enforcing  the  position,  as  asserted  by 
the  court,  that  a  State  could  not  confer  upon  unnaturalized  for 
eigners  the  rights  of  citizenship,  so  far  as  the  Federal  govern 
ment  was  concerned ;  and,  therefore,  I  quoted  only  that  portion 
of  the  sentence  found  in  the  decision,  which  showed  that  to  be 
the  position  of  the  court.  That  portion  of  the  sentence  is  this — 

Mr.  STEPHENS  I  cannot  yield  any  further.  I  have  already 
read  it. 


630  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OKEGON. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Let  me  add  the  single  remark  that,  in  my 
report,  I  distinctly  concurred  with  the  court  in  the  remaining  por 
tion  of  that  sentence  ;  that  so  far  as  "  the  State  alone  was  con 
cerned,"  the  State  had  the  right  to  confer  rights  of  citizenship 
upon  unnaturalized  foreigners. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  would  have  been  much  better  understood,  if 
the  gentleman  had  quoted  the  whole  of  it,  and  given  his  concur 
rence  in  the  whole  as  it  stands.  And  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  that  in  concurring  in  the  whole  of  that  decision  as  it  stands, 
he  yields  the  whole  question.  If  a  State  has  the  right  to  confer 
upon  aliens  all  the  rights  of  its  own  citizens,  so  far  as  she  is  con 
cerned,  certainly  the  right  of  suffrage  is  included. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER,.  That  is,  so  far  as  the  State  alone  is  con 
cerned. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Exactly.  The  State  has  the  exclusive  control 
of  the  right  of  suffrage  within  her  limits  and  under  her  laws,  ac 
cording  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  She  can  say  who 
may  vote  for  all  her  officers ;  who  for  governor  and  who  for  her 
State  Senate  and  who  for  her  House  of  Representative ;  and  then 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  provides  that  the 
members  of  this  House  shall  be  chosen  or  voted  for  by  those  in 
each  State  who,  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  each  State,  are 
entitled  to  vote  for  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legis 
lature.  In  admitting  that  each  State  may  allow  an  alien  to  vote 
for  members  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  their  own  legisla 
ture,  the  gentleman  yields  this  entire  question.  The  language  in 
Chief  Justice  Taney's  decision  immediately  preceding  that  quoted 
by  the  gentleman  in  his  report,  is  in  these  words  : 

"Nor  have  the  several  States  surrendered  the  power  of  conferring 
these  rights  and  privileges,  by  adopting  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Each  State  may  still  confer  them  upon  an  alien,  or  any  one  it 
thinks  proper,  pr  upon  any  class  or  description  of  persons  ;  yet  he  would 
not  be  a  citizen  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  nor  entitled  to  sue  as  such,  in  one  of  its  courts, 
nor  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  a  citizen  in  the  other  States. 
The  rights  which  he  would  acquire  would  be  restricted  to  the  State  which 
gave  them." 

Then  comes  the  gentleman's  quotation.  And  from  the  whole, 
the  principle  is  clear,  that  each  State  may,  if  she  chooses,  confer 
the  right  of  citizenship  within  her  own  limits  and  jurisdiction 
upon  an  alien.  But,  without  naturalization  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  this  will  not  give  him  the  right  of  citizenship  in 
any  respect  outside  of  that  State.  In  it,  his  rights  of  citizen 
ship  may  be  as  full  and  complete  as  those  of  the  native  born. 

But  I  did  not  intend  to  argue  this  point.  I  did  that  at  the 
last  session,  on  the  Minnesota  bill.  In  that  argument,  I  gave 
the  history  of  this  question  of  alien  suffrage  in  the  territories.  1 
have  nothing  to  add  to  what  I  then  said.  I  barely  refer  to  it 
now,  that  it  may  be  considered  as  part  and  parcel  of  what  I 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION  OF   OREGON.  631 

would  say  on  the  same  points,  if  my  time  allowed,  to-day.  Of 
the  Presidents  who,  in  some  form  or  shape,  had  given  the  princi 
ple  their  sanction,  either  in  the  territories  or  States,  on  their  ad 
mission,  I  named  Washington,  the  elder  Adams,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Jackson,  Polk,  Fillrnore,  and  Pierce;  and  to  this  list  may 
now' be  added  that  of  Buchanan,  who  signed,  the  Minnesota  bill. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  HILL]  yesterday  alluded  to  what  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  said  on  the  subject  in  1836.  I  commented  upon  that,  last 
year.  I  could  not  find  that  speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Globe, 
or  any  parliamentary  record  in  the  country.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  he  did  not  make  it.  It  was  not  made  upon  the  admis 
sion  of  Michigan.  It  was  made,  if  at  all,  when  a  measure  was  up 
involving  the  question  of  suffrage  in  the  territory,  while  Michigan 
was  still  in  a  territorial  condition.  The  speech  is  said  to  have 
been  made  in  1836.  Michigan  was  not  admitted  until  1837.  Her 
constitution  was  similar  in  this  respect  to  that  of  Oregon.  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  then  in  the  Senate ;  he  did  not  raise  his  voice  against 
that  feature  in  it,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find.  Not  a  word 
fell  from  him,  at  that  time,  on  the  subject  of  alien  suffrage,  that  I 
am  aware  of. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.     Allow  me  one  sentence. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     I  cannot  yield. 

Mr.  ZOLLICOFFER.  Allow  me  but  a  single  sentence :  that  sen 
tence  is,  that  I  should  labor  under  great  disadvantage,  if  the 
gentleman  were  even  disposed  to  extend  to  me  the  courtesy  of 
allowing  me  to  leply  to  his  points  while  he  holds  the  floor. 
Therefore,  I  will  not  at  present  ask  to  do  so. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  That  I  understand  very  jvell.  The  gentleman 
can  reply  hereafter.  My  time  will  not  allow  me  to  indulge  him 
now.  I  made  the  speech  I  have  referred  to  last  year,  expecting 
that  it  would  be  replied  to  ;  but  it  remains  yet  without  reply. 
And  I  cannot  permit  my  time  to-day  to  be  taken  up  with  matters 
there  disposed  of. 

Mr.  HILL.  Let  me  ask  my  colleague  a  question.  Is  he  not 
aware  of  the  votes  given  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  Michigan  bill, 
against  permitting  alien  suffrage  in  that  State.  It  was  on  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Clay. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.     What  year  ? 

Mr.  HILL.     In  1836. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes  ;  I  know  of  his  votes  alluded  to  in  1836. 
Michigan  was  then  a  territory.  I  repeat  again,  that  on  the  ad 
mission  of  Michigan  as  a  State  next  year,  Mr.  Calhoun  said  noth 
ing  against  the  alien  suffrage  feature  in  her  State  constitution, 
that  I  know  of.  He  may  still  have  been'against  it. 

But  one  word  further  in  reply  to  my  colleague,  as  to  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  position  on  this  subject.  Whatever  he  may  have  said  on 
it,  or  however  he  may  have  voted  on  it  in  1836,  yet  in  1848, 
he  was  on  the  committee  that  reported  the  celebrated  Clay 
ton  compromise,  which  provided  a  government  for  this  very 


632  SPEECH    ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OKEGON. 

territory  of  Oregon,  and  that  bill  contained  this  very  alien 
suffrage  clause  in  it.  Mr.  Calhoun  voted  for  the  bill  with 
this  clause  in  it  in  the  Senate.  I  have  the  record  by  me.  It 
is  not  of  so  much  importance  what  he  said  or  how  he  voted  in 
1836,  when  the  question  was  first  started,  as  how  he  voted  twelve 
years  afterward,  and  after  mature  investigation.  Here  is  his  vote 
in  1848.  I  put  that  against  his  speech  and  his  vote  in  1836,  and 
let  all  go  to  the  country  with  n^  colleague's  comments.  I  shall 
be  content. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  another  and  entirely  different  aspect  of 
this  question,  I  have  something  special  to  say  to  another  side  of 
the  House — a  distinct  class  in  it.  I  mean  the  members  coming 
from  slaveholding  States.  There  is  evidently  a  feeling  of  opposi 
tion  in  that  quarter  to  the  admission  of  Oregon,  from  a  reluctance 
and  manifest  indisposition  to  increase  the  number  of  what  are 
called  free  States.  This  arises  from  an  apprehension  that,  with 
the  loss  of  the  balance  of  power,  the  rights  of  our  section  upon 
constitutional  questions  will  be  less  secure.  This  may  be  so.  It 
does  not,  however,  necessarily  follow.  But  that  balance  is  already 
gone — lost  by  causes  beyond  your  or  my  control.  There  is  no 
prospect  of  its  ever  being  regained ;  and,  in  taking  that  ground, 
you  do  but  reverse  the  position  of  our  sectional  opponents  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House.  I  know  it  is  the  tendency  of  power  to 
encroach ;  but  let  us  look  to  the  security  which  rests  upon  princi 
ple,  rather  than  upon  numbers.  The  citadel  of  our  defence  is 
principle  sustained  by  reason,  truth,  honor,  and  justice.  Let  us 
therefore  do  justice,  though  the  heavens  fall. 

Let  us  not  do  an  "indirect  wrong,  for  fear  that  the  recipient 
from  our  hands  of  what  is  properly  due  will  turn  upon  us  and 
injure  us.  Statesmen  in  the  line  of  duty  should  never  consult 
their  fears.  Where  duty  leads,  there  we  may  never  fear  to  tread. 
In  the  political  world,  great  events  and  changes  are  rapidly 
crowding  upon  us.  To  these  we  should  not  be  insensible.  As 
wise  men,  we  should  not  attempt  to  ignore  them.  We  need  not 
close  our  eyes,  and  suppose  the  sun  will  cease  to  shine,  because 
we  see  not  the  light.  Let  us  rather,  with  eyes  and  minds  wide 
awake,  look  around  us  and  see  where  we  are,  whence  we  have 
come,  and  where  we  shall  soon  be,  borne  along  by  the  rapid,  swift, 
and  irresistible  car  of  time.  This  immense  territory  to  the  west 
has  to  be  peopled.  It  is  now  peopling.  New  States  are  fast 
growing  up ;  and  others,  not  yet  in  embryo,  will  soon  spring  into 
existence.  Progress  and  development  mark  every  thing  in 
nature — human  societies,  as  well  as  every  thing  else.  Nothing 
in  the  physical  world  is*still ;  life  and  motion  are  in  every  thing : 
so  in  the  mental,  moral,  and  political.  The  earth  is  never  still. 
The  great  central  orb  is  ever  moving.  Progress  is  the  universal 
law  governing  all  things — animate  as  well  as  inanimate.  Death 
itself  is  but  the  beginning  of  a  new  life  in  a  new  form.  Our  gov 
ernment  and  institutions  are  subject  to  this  all  pervading  power. 


SPEECH    ON    THE   ADMISSION    OF   OREGON.  633 

The  past  wonderfully  exemplifies  its  influence,  and  gives  us  some 
shadows  of  the  future. 

This  is  the  sixteenth  session  that  I  have  been  here,  and  within 
that  brief  space  of  fifteen  years,  we  have  added  six  States  to  the 
Union — lacking  but  one  of  being  more  than  half  of  the  original 
thirteen.  Upward  of  twelve  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of 
territory — a  much  larger  area  than  was  possessed  by  the  whole 
United  States  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1183 — have 
been  added  to  our  domain.  At  this  time  the  area  of  our  republic 
is  greater  than  that  of  any  five  of  the  greatest  powers  in  Europe 
all  combined ;  greater  than  that  of  the  Roman  empire  in  the 
brightest  days  of  her  glory ;  more  extensive  than  were  Alexander's 
dominions  when  he  stood  on  the  Indus,  and  wept  that  he  had  no 
more  worlds  to  conquer.  Such  is  our  present  position  ;  nor  are 
we  yet  at  the  end  of  our  acquisitions. 

Our  internal  movements,  within  the  same  time,  have  not  been 
less  active  in  progress  and  development  than  those  external.  A 
bare  glance  at  these  will  suffice.  Our  tonnage,  when  I  first  came 
to  Congress,  was  but  a  little  over  two  million  ;  now  it  is  upward 
of  five  million,  more  than  double.  Our  exports  of  domestic 
manufactures  were  only  eleven  million  dollars  in  round  number ; 
now  they  are  upward  of  thirty  million.  Our  exports  of  domes 
tic  produce,  staples,  etc.,  were  then  under  one  hundred  million 
dollars  ;  now  they  are  upward  of  three  hundred  million  !  The 
amount  of  coin  in  the  United  States,  was  at  that  time  about  one 
hundred  million ;  now  it  exceeds  three  hundred  million.  The 
cotton  crop  then  was  but  fifty-four  million  ;  now  it  is  upward  of 
one  hundred  and  sixty  million  dollars.  We  had  then  not  more 
than  five  thousand  miles  of  railroad  in  operation  ;  we  have  now 
not  less  than  twenty-six  thousand  miles — more  than  enough  to 
encircle  the  globe — and  at  a  cost  of  more  than  one  thousand 
million  dollars.  At  that  time,  Professor  Morse  was  engaged  in 
one  of  the  rooms  of  this  Capitol  in  experimenting  on  his  unper- 
fected  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph — and  there  was  as  much 
doubt  about  his  success,  as  there  is  at  present  about  the  Atlantic 
cable — but  now  there  are  more  than  thirty-five  thousand  miles  in 
extent  of  these  iron  nerves  sent  forth  in  every  direction  through 
the  land,  connecting  the  most  distant  points,  and  uniting  all 
together  as  if  under  the  influence  of  a  common  living  sensorium. 
This  is  but  a  glance  at  the  surface ;  to  enter  within  and  take  the 
range  of  other  matters — schools,  colleges,  the  arts,  and  various 
mechanical  and  industrial  pursuits,  which  add  to  the  intelligence, 
wealth,  and  prosperity  of  a  people,  and  mark  their  course  in  the 
history  of  nations,  would  require  time  ;  but  in  all  would  be  found 
alike  astonishing  results. 

This  progress,  sir,  is  not  to  be  arrested.  It  will  go  on.  The 
end  is  not  yet.  There  are  persons  now  living  who  will  see  over 
a  hundred  million  human  beings  within  the  present  boundaries  of 
the  United  States,  to  say  nothing  of  future  extension,  and  per- 


634  SPEECH   ON   THE  ADMISSION   OF   OREGON. 

haps  double  the  number  of  States  we  now  have,  should  the  Union 
last.  For  myself,  I  say  to  you,  my  southern  colleagues  on  this 
floor,  that  I  do  not  apprehend  danger  to  our  constitutional  rights 
from  the  bare  fact  of  increasing  the  number  of  States  with  insti 
tutions  dissimilar  to  ours.  The  whole  governmental  fabric  of  the 
United  States  is  based  and  founded  upon  the  idea  of  dissimilarity 
in  the  institutions  of  the  respective  members.  Principles,  not  num 
bers,  are  our  protection.  When  these  fail,  we  have,  like  all  other 
people,  who,  knowing  their  rights,  dare  maintain  them,  nothing 
to  rely  upon  but  the  justice  of  our  cause,  our  own  right  arms 
and  stout  hearts.  With  these  feelings  and  this  basis  of  action, 
whenever  any  State  comes  and  asks  admission,  as  Oregon  does,  I 
am  prepared  to  extend  her  the  hand  of  welcome,  without  looking 
into  her  constitution  father  than  to  see  that  it  is  republican  in 
form  upon  our  well-known  American  models. 

When  aggression  comes,  if  come  it  ever  shall,  then  the  end 
draweth  nigh.  Then,  if  in  my  day,  I  shall  be  for  resistance,  open, 
bold,  and  defiant.  I  know  of  no  allegiance  superior  to  that  due 
the  hearthstones  of  the  homestead.  This  I  say  to  all.  I  lay  no 
claim  to  any  sentiment  of  nationality  not  founded  upon  the 
patriotism  of  a  true  heart,  and  I  know  of  no  such  patriotism  that 
does  not  centre  at  home.  Like  the  enlarging  circle  upon  the  sur 
face  of  smooth  waters,  however,  this  can  and  will,  if  unobstructed, 
extend  to  the  utmost  limits  of  a  common  country.  Such  is  my 
nationality — such  my  sectionalism — such  my  patriotism.  Our 
fathers  of  the  South  joined  your  fathers  of  the  North  in  resistance 
to  a  common  aggression  from  their  fatherland ;  and  if  they  were 
justified  in  rising  to  right  a  wrong  inflicted  by  a  parent  country, 
how  much  more  ought  we,  should  the  necessity  ever  come,  to 
stand  justified  before  an  enlightened  world,  in  righting  a  wrong 
from  even  those  we  call  brothers.  That  necessit}^  I  trust,  will 
never  come. 

What  is  to  be  our  future,  I  do  not  know.  I  have  no  taste  for 
indulging  in  speculations  about  it.  I  would  not,  if  I  could,  raise 
the  vail  that  wisely  conceals  it  from  us.  "  Sufficient  unto  the 
day  is  the  evil  thereof,"  is  a  good  precept  in  every  thing  pertain 
ing  to  human  action.  The  evil  I  would  not  anticipate ;  I  would 
rather  strive  to  prevent  its  coming ;  and  one  way,  in  my  judg 
ment,  to  prevent  it,  is,  while  here,  in  all  things  to  do  what  is  right 
and  proper  to  be  done  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  nothing  more,  and  nothing  less.  Our  safety,  as  well  as 
the  prosperity  of  all  parts  of  the  country,  so  long  as  this  govern 
ment  lasts,  lies  mainly  in  a  strict  conformity  to  the  laws  of  its 
existence.  Growth  is  one  of  these.  The  admission  of  new 
States  is  one  of  the  objects  expressty  provided  for.  How  are 
they  to  come  in  ?  With  just  such  constitutions  as  the  people  in 
each  may  please  to  make  for  themselves,  so  it  is  republican  in 
form.  This  is  the  ground  the  South  has  ever  stood  upon.  Let 
us  not  abandon  it  now.  It  is  founded  upon  a  principle  planted 


SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OREGON.  635 

in  the  compact  of  Union  itself;  and  more  essential  to  us  than  all 
others  besides  ;  that  is,  the  equality  of  the  States,  and  the  reserved 
right  of  the  people  of  the  respective  States.  By  our  system, 
each  State,  however  great  the  number,  has  the  absolute  right  to 
regulate  all  its  internal  affairs  as  she  pleases,  subject  only  to  her 
obligations  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  With 
this  limitation,  the  people  of  Massachusetts  have  the  perfect 
right  to  do  as  they  please  upon  all  matters  relating  to  their  in 
ternal  policy ;  the  people  of  Ohio  have  the  right  to  do  the  same ; 
the  people  of  Georgia  the  same ;  of  California  the  same ;  and  so 
with  all  the  rest. 

Such  is  the  machinery  of  our  theory  of  self-government  by  the 
people.  This  is  the  great  novelty  of  our  peculiar  system,  involv 
ing  a  principle  unknown  to  the  ancients,  an  idea  never  dreamed 
of  by  Aristotle  or  Plato.  The  union  of  several  distinct,  inde 
pendent  communities  upon  this  basis,  is  a  new  principle  in  human 
governments.  It  is  now  a  problem  in  experiment  for  the  people 
of  the  nineteenth  century  upon  this  continent  to  solve.  As  I  be 
hold  its  workings  in  the  past  and  at  the  present,  while  I  am  not 
sanguine,  yet  I  am  hopeful  of  its  successful  solution.  The  most 
joyous  feeling  of  my  heart  is  the  earnest  hope  that  it  will,  for  the 
future,  move  on  as  peacefully,  prosperously,  and  brilliantly,  as  it 
has  in  the  past.  If  so,  then  we  shall  exhibit  a  moral  and  politi 
cal  spectacle  to  the  world  something  like  the  prophetic  vision  of 
Ezekiel,  when  he  saw  a  number  of  distinct  beings  or  living  crea 
tures,  each  with  a  separate  and  distinct  organism,  having  the 
functions  of  life  within  itself,  all  of  one  external  likeness,  and  all, 
at  the  same  time,  mysteriously  connected  with  one  common  ani 
mating  spirit  pervading  the  whole,  so  that  when  the  common 
spirit  moved  the}'  all  moved ;  their  appearance  and  their  work 
being,  as  it  were,  a  wheel  in  the  middle  of  a  wheel ;  and  whither 
soever  the  common  spirit  went,  thither  the  others  went,  all  going 
together ;  and  when  they  went,  he  heard  the  noise  of  their  mo 
tion  like  the  noise  of  great  waters,  as  the  voice  of  the  Almighty. 
Should  our  experiment  succeed,  such  will  be  our  exhibition — a 
machinery  of  government  so  intricate,  so  complicated,  with  so 
many  separate  and  distinct  parts,  so  many  independent  States, 
each  perfect  in  the  attributes  and  functions  of  sovereignty,  within 
its  own  jurisdiction,  all,  nevertheless,  united  under  the  control  of 
a  common  directing  power  for  external  objects  and  purposes, 
may  natural  enough  seem  novel,  strange,  and  inexplicable  to  the 
philosophers  and  crowned  heads  of  the  world. 

It  is  for  us,  and  those  who  shall  come  after  us,  to  determine 
whether  this  grand  experimental  problem  shall  be  worked  out ; 
not  by  quarrelling  amongst  ourselves;  not  by  doing  injustice  to 
any ;  not  by  keeping  out  any  particular  class  of  States  ;  but  by 
each  State  remaining  a  separate  and  distinct  political  organism 
within  itself — all  bound  together  for  general  objects,  under  a  com 
mon  Federal  head  ;  as  it  were,  a  wheel  within  a  wheel.  Then  the 


636  SPEECH   ON   THE   ADMISSION   OF   OEEGON. 

number  may  be  multiplied  without  limit ;  and  then,  indeed,  ma^y  the 
nations  of  the  earth  look  on  in  wonder  at  our  career ;  and  when 
they  hear  the  noise  of  th A  wheels  of  our  progress  in  achievement, 
in  development,  in  expansion,  in  glory,  and  renown,  it  may  well 
appear  to  them  not  unlike  the  noise  of  great  waters ;  the  very 
voice  of  the  Almighty — Vox  populi!  Vox  Dei!  [Great  applause 
in  the  galleries,  and  on  the  floor.] 

The  SPEAKER.  If  the  applause  in  the  galleries  is  repeated, 
the  Chair  will  order  the  galleries  to  be  cleared. 

Many  MEMBERS.    It  was  upon  the  floor. 

MR.  STEPHENS.  One  or  two  other  matters  only  I  wish  to 
allude  to.  These  relate  mainly  to  amendments.  I  trust  that  every 
friend  of  ttiis  bill  will  unite  and  vote  down  ever}?-  amendment. 
It  needs  no  amendment.  Oregon  has  nothing  to  do  with  Kansas, 
and  should  in  no  way  be  connected  with  her.  To  remand  her 
back,  as  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.'  MARSHALL]  proposes, 
to  compel  her  to  regulate  suffrage  as  we  may  be  disposed  to  dic 
tate,  would  be  but  going  back  to  the  old  attempt  to  impose  con 
ditions  upon  Missouri.  There  is  no  necessity  for  any  census,  if 
we  are  satisfied,  from  all  the  evidence  before  us,  that  there  are 
sixty  thousand  inhabitants  there.  Florida  was  admitted  without 
a  census.  Texas  was  admitted,  with  two  members  on  this  floor, 
without  a  census.  So  was  California. 

To  our  friends  upon  this  side  of  the  House,  let  me  say,  if  you 
cannot  vote  for  the  bill,  assist  us  in  having  it  voted  upon  as  it  is. 
Put  on  no  riders.  Give  us  no  side  blows.  Aid  in  keeping  them 
off.  Let  the  measure  stand  or  fall  upon  its  merits.  If  you  can 
not  vote  for  the  bill,  vote  against  it  just  as  it  stands. 

I  see  my  time  is  nearly  out,  and  I  cannot  go  into  the  discus 
sion  of  other  branches  of  the  question,  but  may  I  not  make  an 
appeal  to  all  sides  of  the  House  to  come  up  to  do  their  duty  to 
day  ?  I  have  spoken  of  the  rapid  development  of  our  country 
and  its  progress  in  all  its  material  resources.  Is  it  true  that  the 
intellectual  and  moral  development  of  our  country  has  not  kept 
pace  with  its  physical  ?  Has  our  political  body  outgrown  the 
heads  and  hearts  of  those  who  are  to  govern  it  ?  Is  it  so,  that 
^his  Thirty-fifth  Congress  is  unequal  to  the  great  mission  before 
it  ?  Are  we  progressing  in  every  thing  but  mind  and  patriotism  ? 
Has  destiny  cast  upon  us  a  heavier  load  of  duty  than  we  are  able 
to  perform  ?  Are  we  unequal  to  the  task  assigned  us  ?  I  trust 
not.  I  know  it  is  sometimes  said  in  the  country  that  Congress 
has  degenerated.  It  is  for  us  this  day  to  show  wiiether  it  is  true 
or  not.  For  myself,  I  do  not  believe  it.  It  may  be  that  the 
esprit  du  corps  may  have  some  influence  on  my  judgment.  Some 
thing  may  be  pardoned  to  that.  But  still  I  feel  that  I  address 
men  of  as  much  intelligence,  reflection,  talent,  integrity,  virtue, 
and  worth,  as  I  have  ever  met  in  this  hall ;  men  not  unfit  to  be 
the  representatives  of  this  great,  growing,  and  prosperous  con 
federacy.  The  only  real  fitness  for  any  public  station  is  to  be 


FAREWELL    SPEECH.  637 

up  to  the  requirements  of  the  occasion,  whatever  that  be  Let 
us,  then,  vindicate  our  characters  as  fit  legislators  to-day ;  and, 
with  that  dignity  and  decorum  which  have  so  signally  marked 
our  proceedings  upon  other  great,  exciting  questions  before,  and 
which,  whatever  may  be  said  of  our  debates,  may  be  claimed  as  a 
distinguished  honor  for  the  present  House  of  Representatives, 
let  us  do  the  work  assigned  us  with  that  integrity  of  purpose 
which  discharges  duty  regardless  of  consequences,  and  with  a 
patriotism  commensurate  with  the  magnitude  of  the  subject 
under  all  its  responsibilities. 


FAREWELL   SPEECH  OP  HOK  A.  H.   STEPHENS. 

DELIVERED  IN  AUGUSTA,  GEORGIA,  ON  SATURDAY,  JULY  2,  1859. 

Mr.  President,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  and  Respected  Audi 
tory  : 

For  this  demonstration,  on  my  retiring  from  public  life,  I  return 
you  my  unaffected  and  unfeigned  thanks.  The  circumstances 
attending  it — this  imposing  assembly — consisting,  not  only  of  so 
large  a  number  of  voters  of  the  district,  but  of  so  many  of  the 
fair  of  the  land — the  mothers  and  daughters,  who  give  honor  by 
their  presence — are  well  calculated  greatty  to  enhance  its  appre 
ciation.  It  is  not  every  one  who  has  been  in  public  life  so  long 
as  I  have,  that  has  been  so  fortunate  as  to  receive  such  a  compli 
ment  at  its  close.  It  was  not  an  uncommon  event  amongst  the 
ancients  for  public  men  to  be  ostracised  and  exiled,  even  by  those 
who  had  elevated  them  to  places  of  trust  and  distinction.  But 
the  testimonial  now  tendered  comes  not  exclusively  from  that 
class  of  my  constituents.  This  ma}7,  perhaps,  be  owing  more  to 
personal  than  to  public  considerations.  Be  that  as  it  may,  how 
ever,  let  this  manifestation  of  regard  shown  to  me  here,  without 
distinction  of  party,  by  the  generous  and  liberal-minded  citizens 
of  this  enterprising  and  flourishing  city — distinguished  alike  for 
intelligence,  urbanity,  and  public  spirit,  spring  from  whatever 
motive  it  may,  of  this  you  may  be  assured,  one  and  all,  I  feel  it 
most  profoundly,  and  make  my  acknowledgments  most  sincerely 
and  gratefully.  Whether  merited  or  not,  it  is  more  than  I  ex 
pected.  It  is  much  more  than  I  desired. 

Having  entered  public  life  reluctantly,  without  any  selfish 
motives,  and  without  any  object  of  personal  ambition  or  aggran 
dizement,  I  should  •  have  preferred,  when  the  state  of  affairs 
favored  my  leaving  it,  to  go  quietly  into  that  retirement  so  much 
more  congenial  to  my  nature,  without  any  other  record  of 
approval  of  my  conduct  to  bear  with  me  than  that  of  my  owu 


638  FAREWELL   SPEECH. 

judgment,  and  the  consciousness  of  having,  on  all  occasions  and 
on  all  questions,  endeavored  to  discharge  my  duty  faithfully  and 
with  an  eye  single  to  the  maintenance  of  your  rights  and  the 
advancement  of  the  general  public  weal. 

As  you  chose  that  it  should  be  otherwise,  I  could  not,  in  con 
sideration  of  the  relations  we  have  borne  toward  each  other,  as 
representative  and  constituents,  decline  a  compliance  with  your 
request.  And  it  is  due  to  you,  in  candor,  to  say  that,  so  far  as 
personal  gratification  is  concerned,  this  display  does,  in  some 
measure,  compensate  for  the  labor,  toil,  sacrifice,  and  wear  and 
tear  of  body  and  mind,  ever  attendant  on  him  who  undertakes 
to  watch  over,  guard,  and  protect  the  public  interests. 

The  occasion  itself  naturally  suggests  feelings  of  regret,  as 
all  partings  do — the  severance  of  ties  so  long  binding  us  together 
in  relations  of  such  confidence  and  responsibility,  is  not  unlike 
the  severance  of  other  ties  that  link  the  teriderest  attachments  of 
nature.  I  find,  however,  other  matters  of  thought  and  reflection 
which  prompt  emotions  of  a  different  character  from  those  which 
usually  attend  ordinary  separations  and  final  adieus.  Some  of 
these  it  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  mention.  Not  exactly,  then, 
do  I  feel  like  one  who  is  about  to  take  his  departure  from  home, 
from  friends,  from  all  he  holds  dear,  with  doubt  and  uncertainty 
whether  he  shall  ever  meet  them  again  ;  but  rather  as  the  weather- 
beaten  mariner,  who  has  successfully  passed  the  perils  of  his 
last  of  many  dangerous  voyages,  over  and  across  the  mighty 
deep,  hails,  with  elated  heart  and  inward  rejoicing  of  spirit,  his 
home-haven  finally  reached  in  safety,  never  to  encounter  ocean- 
storms  and  tempests  or  troubled  waters  more.  Thus  I  feel 

Politics  is  indeed  a  rough  and  uncertain  sea,  abounding  in  un 
certain  and  dangerous  elements — elements  which,  however  still 
and  quiet  they  may  now  be,  are  always  fierce  and  portentous 
when  fully  aroused ;  and  perhaps  they  were  never,  in  our  history, 
lashed  into  greater  fury  than  they  have  been  repeatedly  during 
the  period  of  my  service.  The  shattered  fragments,  "  disjecta 
membra,"  of  many  a  gallant  bark,  oft  have  been  seen  adrift  on 
either  side,  borne  along  by  the  currents  in  their  resistless  way; 
and  many  noble  true-hearted  comrades  have  been  seen  "  rari 
nantes  in  gurgite  vasto."  Is  it  not  natural,  then,  that  I  should 
now,  in  contemplating  the  past,  feel  a  deep  personal  gratification 
that  I  was  so  fortunate  as  to  surmount  these  perils,  pass  securely 
these  risks  and  hazards,  not  only  without  a  wreck,  a  founder,  or 
a  stranding,  but  without  the  loss  of  a  mast  or  single  spar  ? 
For  this  I  am  indebted  to  your  generous  confidence. 

But  there  is  another  reflection  far  more  important,  and,  doubt 
less,  much  more  interesting  to  you,  as  well  as  more  gratifying  to 
myself — that  is,  that  I  leave  the  country  not 'only  in  as  good,  but 
in  a  better  condition  than  I  found  it.  Whatever  dangers  may 
have  threatened  us,  the  republic  has  sustained  no  serious  detri 
ment,  either  in  her  material  resources,  intellectual  advancement, 


FAREWELL    SPEECH.  639 

social  condition,  or  political  status.  On  the  contrary,  with  what 
ever  short-comings  there  may  have  been,  in  that  fuller  develop 
ment,  that  might  have  been  attained  in  some  of  these  particulars, 
yet,  on  the  whole,  her  progress  in  each  for  the  better,  has  been 
most  marked  and  unprecedented.  This  is  true  of  the  whole 
country,  as  well  as  of  each  of  the  parts  separately,  and  especially 
of  our  own  State. 

Contrast,  for  a  moment,  in  yom  minds,  the  condition  of  Geor 
gia,  physically  and  intellectually,  in  1836,  when  I  first  entered 
the  legislature,  with  her  condition  now.  The  change  seems 
almost  equal  to  the  works  of  magic.  Passing  by  those  material 
developments  which  have  ghfen  us  the  honor  of  being  styled  the 
Empire  State  amongst  our  sisters  of  the  South,  take  but  a  glance 
in  another  department — that  which  embraces  higher  and  nobler 
improvements.  Then,  there  was  but  one  college  in  the  State,  and 
that,  for  the  education  of  men.  Now,  we  have  five  times  that 
number,  of  the  same  character.  Then,  there  was  not  in  the  State, 
or  in  the  world,  I  believe,  a  single  chartered  university  for  the 
education  and  regular  graduation  of  women  ;  I  mean  such  as  con 
ferred  the  usual  college  degrees.  The  Georgia  Female  College, 
at  Macon,  incorporated  in  1836,  with  such  objects,  purposes,  and 
powers,  I  believe,  was  the  first  of  its  kind  anywhere.  The  move 
ment  at  the  time  was  the  occasion  of  amusement  to  some.  I  may 
be  pardoned  in  this  presence,  in  saying  that  it  met  my  warm  sup 
port.  The  experiment  proving  successful  beyond  the  expecta 
tion  of  its  most  sanguine  friends,  the  example  became  contagious 
— not  only  in  our  own  State,  but  in  adjoining  States — and  we 
now  have  a  perfect  galaxy  of  these  brilliant  luminaries,  sending 
forth  their  cheering  beams  in  every  direction,  like  new  stars  in 
the  firmament  above,  just  brought  into  existence  in  the  progress 
of  creation.  Whatever  honor,  therefore,  Georgia  is  entitled  to 
for  her  other  great  works  of  improvement  and  achievement ;  and 
however  broad,  massive,  and  substantial  the  materials  may  be 
that  enter  into  the  monument  reared  to  her  fame ;  and  however 
high  they  may  be  piled  up,  let  this  still  be  at  the  top,  the  filling 
and  crowning  point  of  her  glory,  that  she  took  and  holds  the 
lead  of  all  the  world  in  female  education. 

In  a  national  point  of  view,  our  progress  has  also  been  great. 
Yast  territories  have  been  added  to  our  limits.  Our  trade,  our 
commerce,  our  manufactures,  our  exports  and  imports,  have  been 
more  than  trebled.  History  furnishes  no  equal  to  it  in  the  annals 
of  nations.  All  those  great  sectional  questions  which  so  furiously 
in  their  turn  agitated  the  public  mind,  foreboding  disaster,  and 
which,  from  my  connection  with  them,  caused  me  to  remain  so 
long  at  the  post  you  assigned  me,  have  been  amicably  and  satis 
factorily  adjusted,  without  the  sacrifice  of  any  principle,  or  the 
loss  of  any  essential  right.  At  this  time,  there  is  not  a  ripple 
upon  the  surface.  The  country  was  never  in  a  profounder  quiet, 
or  the  people,  from  one  extent  of  it  to  the  other,  in  a  more  per- 


640  FAREWELL    SPEECH, 

feet  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  peace  and  prosperity  secured 
by  those  institutions,  for  which  we  should  feel  no  less  grateful 
than  proud.  It  is  at  such  a  time,  and  with  these  views  of  its 
condition,  that  I  cease  all  active  connection  with  its  affairs. 

In  reference  to  those  agitations,  and  the  questions  giving  rise 
to  them,  and  my  conduct  on  them,  which  you  have  been  pleased 
to  speak  of  in  terms  of  such  high  commendation,  I  ask  your  in 
dulgence  only  to  say  a  few  things,  and  these  few  only  as  of  mat 
ters  that  are  past.  They  were  questions  of  no  ordinary  magni 
tude  ;  they  were  vital  in  their  character  ;  they  oppressed  me  with 
the  most  anxious  care — with  the  heavy  weight  of  the  most  intense 
sense  of  responsibility — and  the  more  so  as  they  subjected  me, 
on  several  occasions,  to  the  most  trying  of  all  political  ordeals 
— the  separation  in  action  from  old  allies  and  old  friends. 

The  first  of  these  was  the  annexation  of  Texas.  This  arose  on 
my  entrance  into  Congress.  It  was  to  me  a  new  field  and  a  new 
theatre.  It  requires  an  effort,  at  this  time,  to  recall  the  scenes 
of  that  day — the  arguments  for  and  against — the  passions  and 
prejudices  that  were  aroused  on  both  sides.  The  public  mind 
was  perhaps  never  before  more  thoroughly  excited.  It  was  my 
fortune,  with  a  few  others,  to  differ,  not  only  from  our  own  party 
friends,  but  from  a  majority  of  those  on  the  other  side.  We  were 
for  the  measure.  We  believed  it  to  be  constitutional  and  advan 
tageous,  notwithstanding  the  contrary  judgment  and  the  fearful 
consequences  predicted  by  many  sages  in  council,  in  whose  wis 
dom  and  patriotism  we  had  ever  confided.  We  were  for  it,  how 
ever,  only  on  condition  that  the  rights  of  the  South  snould  be 
settled  and  guaranteed  in  the  bonds  of  union.  In  this  position, 
we  held  the  balance  of  power  in  the  House ;  and  it  was  not  until 
various  other  propositions,  which  left  these  points  open,  were 
voted  down — we  voting  with  the  general  opponents  of  the  meas 
ure  on  them,  that  ours,  which  secured  the  existing  guarantee  for 
four  slave  States,  to  be  carved  out  of  the  territory  and  admitted 
into  the  Union,  if  the  people  should  present  such  constitutions, 
on  their  application  for  admission,  was  taken  up  and  passed  by 
the  general  friends  of  the  measure.  The  true  history  of  these 
resolutions  has  never  been  given.  Colonel  Benton,  in  his  "Thirty 
Years'  View,"  quotes  them  at  length,  and  says  that  they  were 
introduced  at  an  early  day  of  the  session.  He  says  they  "  were 
sent  down  from  the  State  department."  In  this  he  makes  one 
of  his  flings  at  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  was  then  at  the  head  of  that 
department.  This  is,  in  every  essential  particular,  a  mistake. 
These  resolutions  were  not  introduced  at  an  early  day'  of  the 
session.  Congress  met  on  the  2d  day  of  December,  1844;  on  the 
12th  of  that  month,  Mr.  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  foreign  affairs,  introduced  the  administration  meas 
ure.  After  that,  there  were  six  other  plans  of  annexation  intro 
duced  before  the  resolutions,  which  finally  passed,  were  offered. 
They  were  presented  by  Mr.  Wilton  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  on  the 


FAREWELL    SPEECH.  641 

13th  of  January,  1845.  He  and  I  consulted  frequently  together. 
We  agreed  in  our  views.  We  could  not  support  any  one  of  the 
plans  submitted,  but  were  anxious  for  the  measure  to  succeed  on 
the  terms  I  have  stated.  He  drew  up  the  resolutions,  embodying 
our  views,  securing  the  settlement  of  the  vexed  question,  and  the 
guarantee  as  to  the  four  future  slave  States,  south  of  the  Missouri 
line,  just  as  they  passed.  Neither  Mr.  Calhoun  nor  Mr.  Tyler 
ever  saw  the  resolutions  until  they  were  offered  to  the  House ; 
and  I  doubt  if  any  other  person  did  except  Mr.  Brown,  myself, 
and  Hon.  Ephraim  H.  Foster,  one  of  the  senators  of  Tennessee. 
Mr.  Brown  informed  me  that  Mr.  Foster  concurred  fully  in  our 
views,  and  would  present  the  same  resolutions  in  the  Senate  on 
the  same  day,  which  he  did,  remarking  at  the  time  that  he  had 
neither  consulted  nor  converse^  with  any  other  senator  in  rela 
tion  to  them.  As  for  the  phraseology  of  the  resolutions,  that  is 
due  entirely  to  Mr.  Brown ;  but  for  the  substance,  I  feel  fully 
justified  in  saying  that  we  are  both  jointly  and  equally  respon 
sible.  My  course  in  the  matter  was  taken,  not  without  some 
doubt  and  distrust  that  it  might  be  wrong,  as  so  much  talent, 
age,  experience,  and  worth  were  arrayed  against  it ;  hence,  you 
may  imagine  the  gratification  I  felt,  six  years  after,  when  Mr. 
Webster,  in  his  celebrated  7th  of  March  speech,  fully  admitted 
the  constitutionality  of  the  annexation,  and  the  binding  obliga 
tions  of  the  guarantees  therein  secured.  The  recognized  consti 
tutional  expounder,  and  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  opponents  of 
the  measure,  though  not  in  official  position  at  the  time  it  passed, 
lived  to  give  the  constitutional  question  involved  the  sanction 
of  his  high  authority ;  and  now  few  men  of  any  party  or  any 
creed  raise  a  point  upon  the  subject. 

The  next  question  of  agitation  arose  out  of  our  acquisitions 
from  Mexico,  embracing  also  the  territory  of  Oregon — the  title 
to  which  had  just  been  definitely  settled  about  that  time.  This 
was  the  greatest  of  all,  before  or  since.  It  involved  the  powers 
of  Congress  over  the  territories,  and  the  right  of  the  general 
government  to  exclude  slavery,  as  it  exists  with  us,  from  them. 
The  principle  was  one  of  vast  importance,  whether  considered 
in  an  abstract  or  practical  view.  Its  assertion  abstractly  carried 
with  it  southern  inequality,  inferiority,  and  degradation.  Its 
enforcement  practically  would  have  hemmed  us  up,  hedged  us  in, 
walled  us  around,  and  prevented  all  future  growth  and  expansion. 
The  point  the  South  made  was  the  right  to  go  into  the  territories 
with  their  slave  property,  on  the  same  footing,  and  with  the  same 
security,  as  other  property  under  the  constitution.  This  was  her  de 
mand  ;  and  it  was  on  this  basis  the  settlement  was  made.  The  terri 
tories  are  to  be  kept  open  for  settlement  and  colonization,  by  all, 
alike,  without  any  discriminating  legislation  on  the  part  of  Con 
gress  for  or  against  any  species  of  property,  until  the  people  come 
to  form  their  State  constitutions  for  admission  into  the  Union- — 
when  they  are  tc  be  admitted  either  with  or  without  slavery,  as 
41 


642  FAREWELL   SPEECH. 

they  may  then  determine  for  themselves.  This  is  non-interven 
tion.  And,  as  you  all  may  know,  it  came  short  of  what  I  wished. 
It  was,  in  my -view,  not  the  full  measure  of  our  rights — that  re 
quired,  in  my  judgment,  the  enactment,  by  Congress,  of  all 
needful  laws  for  the  protection  of  slave  property  in  the  terri 
tories,  so  long  as  the  territorial  condition  lasted. 

But  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  South  was  against  that 
position.  It  was  said  that  we  who  maintained  it,  yielded  the 
whole  question  by  yielding  the  jurisdiction — and  that,  if  we 
conceded  the  power  to  protect,  we  necessarily  conceded  with  it 
the  power  to  prohibit.  This,  by  no  means,  followed,  in  my  judg 
ment.  But  such  was  the  prevailing  opinion.  And  it  was  not 
until  it  was  well  ascertained  that  a  large  majority  of  the  South 
would  not  ask  for,  or  even  vote  fo^  congressional  protection,  that 
those  of  us  who  were  for  it  yielded  to  non-intervention,  because, 
though  it  came*  short  of  our  wishes,  yet,  it  contained  no  sacrifice 
of  principle — had  nothing  aggressive  in  it,  and  secured  for  all 
practical  purposes,  what  was  wanted.  That  is,  the  unrestricted 
right  of  expansion  over  the  common  public  domain,  as  inclina 
tion,  convenience,  or  necessity  may  require  on  the  part  of  our 
people.  For,  while  Congress  abstained  from  all  direct  legisla 
tion  on  the  subject,  yet  the  bills  organizing  territorial  govern 
ments  granted  to  the  local  legislatures  the  power  to  pass  laws 
"  upon  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  not  inconsistent  with 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States."  This  gave  them  the 
power  to  pass  all  needful  laws  for  the  protection  of  slave  property, 
if  the  people  wanted  them — that  being  a  rightful  subject  of  legisla 
tion — but  none  to  prohibit  or  exclude — that  being  inconsistent 
with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  exercise  of  a 
power  that  Congress  did  not  possess,  and  could  not  grant. 

This  was  the  view  we  took  of  the  case ;  and  this  has  since  been 
sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Thus  the  settlement  was  made — thus  the 
record  stands — and  by  it  I  am  still  willing  to  stand,  as  it  was 
fully  up  to  the  demands  of  the  South,  through  her  representa 
tives  at  the  time,  though  not  up  to  my  own;  and,  as  by  it  the 
right  of  expansion  to  the  extent  of  population  and  capacity  is 
amply  secured,  which  was  the  great  practical  object  had  in  view. 
The  subsequent  excitement  on  the  Kansas  bill,  in  1854,  was  but 
a  sequel  to  that  of  1850. 

In  carrying  out  the  principles  established  in  1850 — of  opening 
the  territories,  and  leaving  them  free  for  settlement  by  all,  alike, 
without  congressional  interference,  it  became  necessary  to  take 
off  the  old  restriction  of  1820,  which  had  been  put  upon  that 
territory. 

The  agitation  this  gave  rise  to,  was  caused  by  nothing  but  the 
dying  efforts  of  the  old  restrictionists  to  hold  their  old  ground, 
and  to  fight  the  battle  of  1850  over  again.  This  was  a  struggle 
ma  ily  for  principle — abstract  principle  on  both  sides.  In  the 


FAREWELL   SPEECH.  643 

result,  we  were  triumphant.  But  it  was  not  a  triumph  of  the 
South  over  the  North,  so  much  as  it  was  a  triumph  of  the  friends 
of  constitutional  equality  and  right,  over  their  enemies  ever}^- 
where  ;  and  let  no  man  consider  this  agitation,  so  far  as  the  South 
is  responsible  for  it,  as  useless  or  unnecessary,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
a  struggle  mainly-  for  an  abstract  principle  having  practically 
nothing  in  it.  Let  no  one  indulge  the  belief  that  it  would  have 
been  better  for  the  South  to  have  quietly  let  the  old  restriction 
against  us  remain  upon  the  statute  book,  as  there  was  little  pros 
pect  that  slavery  ever  would  go  to  those  territories,  and  as  the 
Supreme  Court  has  since  decided,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  that 
the  old  restriction  was  unconstitutional  and  void  anyhow.  Let 
no  one  think  that  the  amount  of  practical  interest  in  the  result 
did  not  justify  the  popular  commotion  that  the  controversy 
evoked.  Let  no  one  take  any  such  view  of  the  subject  as  this ; 
practical  results  should  weigh  but  little  when  great  fundamental, 
constitutional,  and  abstract  principles  of  government  are  to  be 
settled.  These  underlie  all  popular  rights,  and  constitute  the 
essence  of  sovereignty  and  independence ;  and  the  fates  of  nations 
depend  upon  a  rigid  maintenance  of  them.  An  insult  to  a  flag 
has  but  little  practical  injury  in  it;  and  yet,  if  unatoned  for,  will 
and  ought  to  justify  war  "at  every  hazard  and  to  the  last 
extremity."  The  war  of  the  American  revolution,  which  gave  us 
our  national  independence,  was  fought  more  in  vindication  of 
abstract  principles  than  for  the  redress  of  any  practical  griev 
ances.  The  grievances  of  the  colonies  were  mainly  the  assertion 
of  rights  and  powers  over  them  by  the  British  parliament,  which 
they  denied.  Hence,  Mr.  Webster  said,  truly,  that  it  was  fought 
"  on  a  preamble."  It  was  not  the  amount  of  the  tax  complained 
of,  so  much  as  the  right  of  imposing  it  without  representation. 
The  very  bill  that  led  to  resistance  reduced  the  tax,  but  asserted 
in  its  preamble  the  unlimited  and  unconditional  power  to  tax. 
It  was  on  this  measure,  that  the  great  Edmund  Burke — a  son, 
Mr.  President,  (Mr.  John  Bones,)  of  your  own  native  isle,  who 
ranks  high  above  all  the  others  of  her  most  illustrious  names — high 
above  Grattan,  Curran,  and  Emmet,  and  who  stood  foremost  and 
first  among  orators  and  statesmen  not  only  in  the  British  parlia 
ment  but  in  the  world,  in  his  day — if  he  has  ever  been  surpassed 
in  any  age  or  country — it  was  on  this  bill,  thus  granting  relief  to 
the  colonies,  accompanied  by  the  bare  assertion  of  illegal  right, 
that  Burke,  in  his  place,  told  the  House  of  Commons  that  they 
were  sending  an  angel  of  peace,  "  but  with  it  they  were  sending 
out  a  destroying  angel,  too  ;"  and  what  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
conflict  of  these  two  adverse  spirits,  or  which  would  predominate 
in  the  end,  was  what  he  dared  not  say.  His  warning  was  not 
heeded.  The  destroying  angel  came  ;  but  with  no  effect  upon  our 
ancestors,  except  to  arouse  them  in  defence  of  even  their  abstract 
rights.  It  was  England,  who,  under  the  influence  of  his  unseen 
power,  was  left  to  mourn  the  loss  of  her  first-born  colonies. 


644  FAKEWELL   SPEECH. 

In  politics,  as  in  law,  the  greatest  results  often  follow  the 
establishment  of  abstract  principles,  when  the  amount  of  practi 
cal  interest  involved  is  too  small  to  be  taken  in  the  estimation. 
Principles  deciding  the  titles  to  millions  of  property  may  be  set 
tled,  and  often  are,  upon  a  pepper-corn  issue.  In  the  case  of 
Pierce  and  Twine,  two  hundred  pounds  sterling  only  were  in 
volved.  But  who  could  estimate  the  hundreds  of  thousands  that 
have  been  controlled  by  the  principles  established  by  it  ?  Or 
who  would  undertake  to  number  the  millions  upon  millions, 
which  have  and  do  depend  upon  the  principles  of  Shelly's  case, 
or  Perrin  against  Blake  ?  In  this  last,  thousands  of  dollars  have 
been  spent  in  publishing  books  that  have  been  written  upon  it — 
to  say  nothing  about  the  amount  or  value  of  property  it  has  con 
trolled.  And  yet,  only  two  thousand  pounds  sterling  were  all 
that  was  practically  in  issue  in  it.  And  what  was  the  amount 
practically  in  issue  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  itself?  Nothing  but 
the  value  of  one  slave,  perhaps,  less  than  a  thousand  dollars ; 
yet,  on  the  principle  depended  not  only  many  other  thousands, 
but  in  all  probability  the  destiny  of  this  country.  And  who  is 
vain  enough  to  suppose  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  would  have 
been  made,  but  for  the  agitation  and  the  discussion  which  pre 
ceded  it,  and  the  sound,  clear  principles  which  that  discussion 
brought  to  light  ?  Weigh  not,  therefore,  too  lightly  the  most 
violent  discussions  by  your  public  men,  even  upon  the  most 
abstract  principles.  Nay,  more,  be  prepared  to  assert  them  your 
selves  as  your  fathers  did,  at  any  hazard,  though  there  be  nothing 
at  stake  but  your  honor. 

Nor  am  I  of  the  number  of  those  who  believe  that  we  have  sus 
tained  any  injury  by  these  agitations.  It  is  true,  we  were  not 
responsible  for  them.  We  were  not  the  aggressors.  We  acted 
on  the  defensive.  We  repelled  assault,  calumny,  and  aspersion, 
by  argument,  by  reason,  and  truth.  But  so  far  from  the  institu 
tion  of  African  slavery  in  our  section  being  weakened  or  rendered 
less  secure  by  the  discussion,  my  deliberate  judgment  is  that  it  has 
been  greatly  strengthened  and  fortified — strengthened  and  forti 
fied  not  only  in  the  opinions,  convictions,  and  consciences  of  men, 
but  by  the  action  of  the  government.  Questions  that  were  doubt 
ful  and  mooted  before  these  agitations,  have  since  been  settled — 
settled  as  I  have  stated,  settled  by  all  the  departments  of  the 
government,  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial.  The  old 
Missouri  restriction  of  1820,  has  been  taken  from  the  statute 
book.  There  is  not  now  a  spot  of  the  public  territory  of  the 
United  States,  over  which  the  national  flag  floats,  where  slavery 
is  excluded  by  law  of  Congress ;  and  the  highest  tribunal  of 
the  land  has  decided  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  pass  such  a 
law,  nor  to  grant  such  power  to  a  territorial  legislature.  All  this 
has  been  the  result  of  these  agitations. 

But,  perhaps,  I  am  detaining  you  too  long  on  these  topics.  It 
may  be  that  so  -ne  are  more  anxious  to  hear  what  I  have  to  say 


FAREWELL   SPEECH.  645 

for  the  future.  Will  the  present  quiet  last  ?  or  will  the  anti- 
slavery  spirit  renew  the  strife  ?  And  what  is  to  be  the  end  of 
it  ?  On  this  point,  I  can  only  say,  that  the  future  is  wisely  shut 
out  from  our  view  by  a  curtain  that  I  could  not  lift  if  I  would,  and 
I  would  not  if  I  could.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  take  care  of  the 
ever  present,  with  which  we  are  moving  along.  All  things  human 
are  passing  away.  Nay,  more,  in  the  conditions  and  relations  to 
each  other  of  all  things  throughout  the  material  universe,  there 
is  nothing  eternal,  but  change.  This  is  the  universal  law.  Our 
bocjjes  yield  to  it — death  is  the  common  lot  of  all — governments 
are  subject  to  the  same  law.  The  most  powerful  of  the  present 
day,  will,  in  course  of  time,  pass  away,  as  those  great  empires 
did,  which  we  read  of,  centuries  ago — our  own  cannot  escape  the 
same  inevitable  doom.  But  when  this  win  be — whether  at  an 
early  or  remote  period — I  have  no  disposition  either  to  inquire 
or  to  speculate.  I  have  no  hesitancy,  however,  in  giving  you  the 
strong  conviction  of  my  judgment  that  it  is  best  for  all  that  the 
States  shall  remain  united  under  their  present  constitution  just 
so  long — if  that  be  forever — as  this  end  can  be  attained  without 
the  sacrifice  of  any  constitutional  principle,  or  the  loss  of  any 
constitutional  right  essential  to  the  safety  and  security  of  any 
one  of  them,  or  any  number  of  them — and  that  the  Union  on  this 
basis,  can  be  and  will  be  preserved  just  so  long  as  intelligence, 
virtue,  integrity,  and  patriotism  rule  your  national  councils. 
How  long  this  will  be,  will  depend  upon  the  people  themselves. 

Legislators  in  this  country,  in  the  main,  are  but  the  embodied 
reflection  of  the  characters  and  principles  of  those  who  elect 
them.  As  matters  now  stand,  so  far  as  the  sectional  questions 
are  concerned,  I  see  no  cause  of  danger,  either  to  the  Union,  or 
southern  security  in  it.  The  former  has  always  been  with  me, 
and  ought  to  be  with  you,  subordinate  to  the  latter.  But  on  the 
present  basis  of  governmental  action,  recognized  in  all  its  depart 
ments,  on  those  q'uestions  vital  to  the  South,  I  see  nothing  likely 
to  arise  from  it  calculated  to  endanger  either  her  safety  or  secu 
rity  :  hence,  nothing  to  prevent  the  hope  and  earnest  desire 
that  a  still  greater,  wider,  and  higher  career  is  before  us,  for 
many  long  years  to  come,  than  that  yet  attained.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  diversity  and  dissimilarity  of  the  institutions  of 
the  different  States  inconsistent  with  this — nothing  in  any  in 
crease  or  addition  of  States  ;  nothing  in  the  future  enlargement 
of  the  limits  of  the  republic,  by  further  acquisition  of  territories, 
as,  in  the  event  of  continued  union,  there,  doubtless,  will  be. 
Already,  we  are  looking  out  toward  Chihuahua,  Sonora,  and 
other  parts  of  Mexico — to  Cuba,  and  even  to  Central  America, 
Where  are  to  be  our  ultimate  limits,  time  alone  can  determine. 
Rut  of  all  these  acquisitions,  the  most  important  to  the  whole 
country  is  that  of  Cuba.  She  lies  geographically  in  the  natural 
line  of  extension  and  acquisition.  The  natural  course  for  all 
national  extension  is  on  lines  of  longitude,  rather  than  lines  of 


646  FAREWELL  SPEECH. 

latitude — from  North  to  South,  or  from  South  to  North,  rather 
than  from  East  to  West — so  as  to  bring  within  a  common  juris 
diction  the  products  of  different  climes.  As  yet,  we  embrace  no 
portion  of  the  tropics.  Cuba,  besides,  her  commanding  position 
in  the  Gulf,  and  all  other  advantages,  would  fill  up  this  defi 
ciency. 

On  this  subject,  however,  I  will  say  that  I  am  not  much  in 
favor  of  paying  any  great  sum  of  money  to  Spain  for  that  island. 
If  the  people  ot  Cuba  want  to  come  under  our  jurisdiction,  it  is 
their  right  to  come,  and  ours  to  receive  them,  without  let  or  hin 
drance  from  Spain.  She  holds  the  island  by  no  tenure  but  1;hat 
of  conquest  and  force.  The  more  appropriate  policy  would  be  to 
repeal  all  our  own  laws  which  make  it  penal  and  criminal  for 
our  own  citizens  to  afb  and  help  them  achieve  their  independence. 
Instead  of  offering  Spain  thirty  or  more  millions  of  dollars  for  it,  I 
would  simply  quit  spending  other  millions  in  keeping  watch  and 
guard,  for  her  to  oppress  and  rob ;  I  would  simply  quit  holding 
while  Spain  skins.  A  million  or  two  might  be  well  spent  to 
obtain  so  great  a  result  without  difficulty,  if  Spain  saw  fit  to 
receive  it— not  much  more. 

But  whatever  may  be  our  acquisitions  of  territory,  I  see  noth 
ing  to  endanger  our  rights  in  the  Union,  if  the  principles  now 
established  be  adhered  to  and  maintained  in  good  faith ;  on  this, 
the  future  peace  and  harmony  of  this  country  in  my  judgment  de 
pends.  Over  all  present  possessions  or  future  acquisitions,  we  have 
and  will  have,  by  those  principles,  the  unrestricted  right  to  expand, 
to  settle  and  colonize  with  our  institutions  to  the  extent  of  popu 
lation  and  capacity.  Wherever  climate  and  soil  suit,  there 
slavery  can  and  will  go  to  the  extent  of  population. 

On  this  point  of  extension,  however,  fellow-citizens,  I  deem  it 
my  duty  to  repeat  what  I  said  in  1850,  when  we  had  just  come 
out  of  the  great  struggle  over  the  territorial  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment — whatever  abstract  rights  of  extension  and  expansion 
we  may  have  secured  in  the  settlement  of  that  polic}^  you  may 
not  expect  to  see  many  of  the  territories  come  into  the  Union 
as  slave  States,  unless  we  have  an  increase  of  African  stock. 
The  law  of  population  will  prevent.  We  have  not  the  people. 
Boundaries  by  rivers  or  mountains,  do  not  make  States.  It  takes 
people  to  make  States  ;  and  it  requires  people  of  the  African  race 
to  make  slave  States.  This  requires  no  argument ;  and  I  very 
much  question  whether,  with  our  present  stock  of  that  population, 
we  can  furnish  the  requisite  number  to  secure  more  than  the  four 
States  to  come  out  of  Texas  in  the  present  territories  of  the 
Union.  To  look  for,  or  expect  many  more,  is  to  look  in  vain, 
without  a  foreign  supply.  This  question,  the  people  of  the  South 
should  examine  in  its  length  and  breadth.  It  is  one  deserving 
consideration  of  the  gravest  character.  It  deeply  concerns  our 
internal  interests  and  domestic  policy,  as  well  as  the  growth  and 
extension  of  our  institutions.  It  should  not  be  acted  on  or 


FAREWELL   SPEECH.  647 

decided  hastily  or  rashly,  but  calmly  and  deliberately.  I  only 
present  it  to  you  for  such  consideration ;  and  especially  with  the 
view  of  impressing  you  with  this  great  truth  beforehand,  that 
if  there  are  but  few  more  slave  States  admitted  into  the  Union, 
it  will  not  necessarily  be  in  consequence  of  abolitionism  or  Wil- 
mot  provisoism,  but  for  the  want  of  the  right  sort  of  population 
to  settle  and  colonize  them  with.  It  is  useless  to  wage  war  on 
those  who  may  withhold  congressional  legislation  to  protect  slave 
property  in  the  territories,  or  to  quarrel  amongst  ourselves,  and 
accuse  each  other  of  unsoundness  on  that  question,  unless  we  get 
more  Africans  to  send  there  to  be  protected.  My  object  is  simply 
to  bring  clearly  to  your  mind  the  great  truth — that  without  an 
increase  of  African  slaves  from  abroad,  you  may  not  expect  or 
look  for  many  more  slave  States.  If  the  policy  of  this  country, 
settled  in  its  early  history,  of  prohibiting  further  importations  or 
immigrations  of  this  class  of  population,  is  to  be  adhered  to,  the 
race  of  competition  between  us  and  our  brethren  of  the  North, 
in  the  colonization  of  new  States,  which  heretofore  has  been  so 
well  maintained  by  us,  will  soon  have  to  be  abandoned.  It  is  in 
full  view  of  all  this,  that  I  have  stated,  that  if  the  present  basis 
of  settlement  between  the  sections  of  the  Union,  which  has  been 
sanctioned  by  all  the  departments  of  the  government,  be  adhered 
to,  you  have  nothing  to  fear  for  your  safety  or  security.  For  on 
these  principles  one  slave  State  alone,  by  herself,  would  be  per 
fectly  secure  against  encroachments  or  aggressions  on  her  domes 
tic  internal  policy,  though  all  the  rest  were  free.  But  this  safety 
and  security,  as  well  as  the  future  prospects,  depend  altogether  upon 
a  rigid  adherence  to  these  principles  and  the  adjustment  of  them 
as  stated.  They  are  the  ship  on  which,  as  Paul  said,  you  must 
abide  if  you  would  survive  and  be  safe.  Whether  these  princi 
ples  shall  be  adhered  to,  or  not,  depends  mainly  upon  the  South ; 
with  her  people  united  on  them,  there  is  no  danger.  Indeed,  with 
her  people  united,  under  the  lead  of  wise  councils,  no  one  need 
have  any  apprehension  for  the  stability  and  permanence  of  her 
institutions,  either  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it,  just  as  her  enemies 
may  choose  to  decide  that  question  for  her  should  this  adjustment 
be  disturbed  by  them.  We  control  the  great  staple  which  forms  the 
basis  of  the  commerce  of  the  world  ;  and  if  united  on  a  correct 
policy,  can  and  will  be  able,  in  any  and  every  event,  to  take  care 
of  ourselves. 

African  slavery  with  us  rests  upon  principles  that  can  never  be 
successfully  assailed  by  reason  or  argument.  It  has  grown 
stronger  by  discussion  ;  and  will  still  grow  stronger  as  discus 
sion  proceeds,  and  as  time  rolls  on.  Thirty  years  ago  Virginia 
was  on  the  verge  of  abolition.  Now,  no  such  sentiment  is  to  be 
found  there.  Twenty  years  ago,  Wilberforce's  theor}^  was  car 
ried  out  by  emancipation  in  the  British  West  Indies.  That 
experiment  has  most  signally  failed ;  that  error  in  policy  is 
BOW  attempted  to  be  remedied  by  coolies,  instead  of  Africans, 


648  FAREWELL   SPEECH. 

under  the  title  of  apprentices,  instead  of  slaves.  This  is  but 
verifying  the  proverb  that  one  false  step  leads  to  another.  Car- 
lyle,  the  greatest  thinker  of  England,  has  repudiated  the  folly  of 
abolitionism  and  the  London  Times  followed  not  far  behind 
him.  The  world  is  growing  wiser,  and  upon  110  subject  more 
rapidly  than  that  of  the  proper  status  of  the  negro.  In  my 
judgment,  there  are  more  thinking  men  at  the  North,  now,  who 
look  upon  our  system  of  slavery  as  right,  socially,  morally,  and 
politically,  than  there  were  even  at  the  South,  thirty  years  ago. 
The  leading  public  men  of  the  South,  in  our  early  history,  were 
almost  all  against  it.  Jefferson  was  against  it;  Madison  was 
against  it ;  nearly  all  of  them  were  against  it.  This  I  freely 
admit,  when  the  authority  of  their  names  is  cited.  It  was  a 
question  which  they  did  not,  and  perhaps  could  not,  thoroughly 
understand  at  that  time.  It  was  then  a  new  question  in  the  con 
struction  of  constitutional  government.  It  is  still  a  problem,  in 
process  of  solution.  They  met  the  paramount  questions  of  their 
day  as  statesmen  ;  so  should  the  men  of  this  day  meet  those 
before  them. 

.  New  truths  are  always  slow  in  development.  This  is  the  case 
in  all  the  physical  sciences.  It  was  so  with  the  Copernican 
system  in  astronomy ;  so  with  the  application  of  steam  in  me 
chanics  ;  so  with  the  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  electricity,  and  the 
means  of  controlling  it  for  great  uses  and  purposes  ;  this  is  also 
the  case  with  new  truths  in  government — and  even  more  so  ;  for 
legislators  and  rulers  are  not  generally  the  thinkers  of  any  coun 
try.  Hence,  important  facts  within  their  appropriate  sphere  often 
lie  much  longer  unobserved  without  the  legitimate  inductions 
and  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  them.  The  world  had  moved 
on  for  centuries  ;  States,  Kingdoms,  and  Empires  had  risen, 
fallen,  and  passed  away,  before  legislators  were  even  conscious 
of  the  great  facts  and  truths  brought  to  light  by  Adam  Smith, 
touching  the  laws  of  trade  and  the  real  source  of  the  wealth  of 
nations.  Even  when  first  announced,  they  were  slow  in  impres 
sing  the  minds  of  those  who  controlled  the  action  of  governments. 
Now,  they  are  recognized  and  adopted  as  maxims,  by  the  wise 
and  intelligent  in  all  civilized  countries.  So  it  has  been  and  is 
with  the  great  fact,  that  in  the  framework  of  human  society  the 
materials  for  its  structure  should  be  selected  and  arranged  in  the 
order  of  nature. 

Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  the  greatest  philosophers  of 
antiquity,  directed  their  minds  to  the  systems  of  government  and 
the  proper  constitution  of  a  State.  The  republican  form  was  the 
ideal  model  of  each.  They  all  saw  the  necessity  of  some  sort  of 
gradation  in  the  elements  of  its  composition  ;  but  their  systems 
failed,  because  they  violated  nature  in  making  the  subordinate 
class  of  the  same  race.  Subordination  is  the  normal  condition 
of  the  negro.  This  great  truth,  that  such  was  the  normal  condition 


FAREWELL    SPEECH.  649 

of  any  race  was  not  recognized  in  their  theories  ;  and  hence  their 
machinery,  in  practice,  could  not  work. 

In  this  connection,  allow  ine  to  say  that  I  do  not  agree  with 
some  as  to  the  manner  of  meeting  our  assailants  on  this  subject. 
Many  seem  to  be  not  only  astonished,  but  offended,  at  the  "higher 
law"  doctrine  of  the  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward).  I, 
too,  believe  in  the  higher  law — the  law  of  the  Creator,  as  mani 
fested  in  his  works  and  his  revelation.  Upon  this,  our  cause 
eminently  rests.  I  claim  nothing  barely  upon  the  ground  that 
"thus  it  is  nominated  in  the  bond."  I  recognize  to  the  fullest 
extent,  the  doctrine  that  all  human  laws  and  constitutions  must 
be  founded  upon  the  Divine  law.  And  if  there  is  any  right 
secured,  or  any  obligation  imposed  in  our  constitution,  inconsis 
tent  with  this  lav/,  underlieing  and  overruling  all  others,  such 
right  and  such  obligation  must  be  yielded.  I  would  not  swear  to 
support  any  constitution  inconsistent  with  this  higher  law.  Let 
us  not  deceive  ourselves — this  question  has  to  be  grasped  and  com 
prehended  in  all  its  vast  dimensions — on  it,  we  need  not  be  orators 
so  much  as  thinkers,  nor  declaimers  so  much  as  reasoners.  We 
must  stand  on  the  higher  law,  as  well  as  upon  the  constitution. 
The  latter  must  be  subordinate  to  the  former.  But  as  I  read  the 
inscriptions  upon  the  canvass  of  the  universe  about  us  and  around 
us,  and  over  us,  as  well  as  the  teachings  of  inspiration  "  Order  is 
nature's  first  law ;"  with  it,  come  gradation  and  subordination ; 
this  principle  extends  from  the  throne  of  the  Creator  to  the 
utmost  limits  of  his  works.  We  see  it  in  the  heavens  above — in 
the  greater  and  lesser  -lights — in  the  stars  that  differ  from  each 
other  in  magnitude  and  lustre ;  we  see  it  in  the  earth  below — in 
the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms — ranging  from,  the  stateliest 
trees  of  the  forest  to  the  rudest  mosses  and  ferns.  From  the 
magnolia  grandaflora  gloriosa,  the  rose,  and  the  japonica,  down 
to  the  most  uncouth  flower  we  tread  under  foot — from  the  hugest 
monsters  of  life  in  the  air,  on  the  land,  or  in  the  ocean,  to  the 
smallest  animalcule  to  be  found  in  them  all.  We  see  similar  dis 
tinctions  and  gradations  in  the  races  of  men — from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest  type.  These  are  mysteries  in  creation  which  are  not 
for  us  to  explain.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  they  work  out  a 
grand  harmony  through  the  whole  ;  and  that  in  our  system  of 
government,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  best  in  the  world,  we 
do  but  conform  to  these  immutable  principles  of  nature.  Who, 
then,  is  warring  against  the  higher  law  ?  We  who  conform  to  it, 
or  those  who  are  striving  to  reverse  the  decrees  of  the  Almighty  ? 

In  politics  and  morals,  as  in  mechanics,  it  is  impossible  to  war 
successfully  against  principle.  The  principle  will  ultimately  pre 
vail.  The  wickedest  of  all  follies,  and  the  absurdest  of  all  cru 
sades,  are  those  which  attempt  to  make  things  equal  which  God 
in  his  wisdom  has  made  unequal.  It  is  a  struggle  against  a  prin 
ciple  which  can  never  succeed,  where  reason  has  sway,  until  "  the 
leopard  can  change  his  spots  and  the  Ethiopean  his  skin  " 


650  FAREWELL   SPEECH. 

The  world,  by  wise  men,  is  to  be  taken  as  they  find  it ;  and  it 
is  the  businesss  of  statesmen  so  to  construct  the  materials  of 
society  as  best  to  promote  the  good  of  all.  This  can  never  be 
done  by  violating  any  principle  of  nature.  If  our  system  is  not 
the  best,  or  cannot  be  made  the  best  for  both  races,  it  is  wrong. 
I  utterly  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  the  greatest  good  for  the 
greatest  number.  One  hundred  men  have  no  right  to  have  hap 
piness  at  the  expense  of  ninety-nine,  or  a  less  number.  If  slavery, 
as  it  exists  with  us,  is  not  the  best  for  the  African,  constituted  and 
made  as  he  is — if  it  does  not  best  promote  his  welfare  and  happi 
ness,  socially,  morally,  and  politically,  as  well  as  that  of  his  mas 
ter,  it  ought  to  be  abolished.  But  if  it  does  this,  then  we  stand 
upon  a  rock  as  firm  and  impregnable  as  truth.  And  with  union 
and  patriotism  amongst  our  own  people,  we  have  nothing  to  fear 
from  any  quarter — either  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it.  We  hold  our 
destiny  in  our  own  hands  ;  and  in  pursuing  it  to  the  end,  we  shall 
be  but  fulfilling  a  great  mission  in  advancing  a  new  order  and  a 
higher  type  of  Christian  civilization. 

I  must  now  take  my  farewell  leave.  My  race  has  been  run — 
my  career  is  ended ;  whether  it  has  been  for  good  or  for  evil,  the 
record  is  made  up.  By  it,  I  must  be  judged  in  the  future,  as  all 
others  whose  acts  form  a  part,  however  small,  in  the  public  his 
tory.  I  am  willing  that  my  conduct,  as  it  there  stands,  shall  be 
squared  by  the  Grecian's  rule,  that  "the  course  of  every  public 
man,  upon  all  great  questions,  should  not  only  be  the  best  that 
was  thought  of  by  any  at  the  time,  but  the  very  best  that  all  sub 
sequent  disclosures  shall  show,  could  have  been  thought  of  and 
adopted  under  all  the  circumstances."  The  rule  is  a  rigid  one  ; 
but  I  ask  no  exemption  from  it  now,  nor  hereafter.  Upon  a 
review  of  the  past  up  to  this  time,  I  see  no  cause  to  regret  any 
of  my  acts  upon  any  of  those  questions  to  which  I  have  alluded ; 
nor  is  there  a  single  one  of  them  that  I  would  change. 

I  retire  from  no  feelings  of  discontent — far  from  it ;  no  one  ever 
had  less  cause  to  complain.  If  you  are  satisfied  with  the  past 
I  am.  If  any  explanations  are  necessary  to  satisfy  the  inquiries 
of  those  who  seem  to  think  it  so  strange  that  one  should  volunta 
rily  retire  from  a  place  of  position  and  honor,  I  state  explicitly 
that  it  is  because  those  questions  having  been  settled  with  which 
I  had  become  connected,  there  are  other  pursuits  more  agreeable 
to  my  nature,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  render  the  public 
any  more  essential  service  at  this  time  than  by  showing,  to  the 
extent  of  my  example,  at  least,  that  office  is  not  the  chief  end  of 
man.  I  do  not  say  that  I  will,  under  no  circumstances,  ever  hold 
office  again,  or  serve  the  country  in  any  emergency  that  may 
arise.  That  would  be  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  incivism,  in 
excusable  under  all  circumstances.  An  occasion  may  arise  when 
I  should  feel  it  a  duty  even  to  shoulder  a  musket — though  I  could 
not  render  much  service  in  that  way.  But  I  do  say,  that  there  is 
no  office  under  Heaven  that  I  desire,  or  wish  ever  to  hold — there 


COMMENCEMENT   ADDRESS.  651 

is  none  that  I  should  prefer  to  that  of  representative  in  Congress 
— especially  from  the  eighth  district  of  Georgia.  In  quitting 
that,  therefore,  I  quit  for  good  and  in  earnest — hoping  and  believ 
ing  that  no  such  crisis  ever  will  come  when  I  should  be  required 
to  take  active  part  again  in  public  affairs.  As  a  private  citizen,  I 
shall  continue  to  feel  the  same  interest  in  passing  events,  and  take 
such  part  in  them  as  all  other  good  citizens  should — nothing  more. 

I  cannot  permit  this  occasion  to  go  by  without  adding,  that  if, 
in  the  heat  of  any  of  those  high  party  excitements,  through  which 
it  has  been  my  lot  to  pass.  I  have  ever,  at  any  time,  said  or  done 
aught  to  give  offence,  or  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any  one  wan 
tonly,  or  without  cause,  I  do  deeply  regret  it.  It  was  never  my 
intention  to  offend,  or  to  give  cause  of  offence  to  any,  unless  first 
offended  against ;  and  whatever  instances  of  this  kind  may  have 
occurred,  I  deeply  regret  the  necessity  that  occasioned  them ;  and 
trust  that  the  whole,  alike,  may  be  buried  in  oblivion  forever. 

With  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  here  present,  and  those  of  my  con 
stituents  absent,  I  leave  my  best  wishes  for  long  life  and  happi 
ness.  With  our  common  country,  I  leave  like  good  wishes,  and 
the  earnest  hope  for  undisturbed  peace  and  prosperity,  and  that 
our  institutions,  unimpaired,  national  and  State,  may  long  con 
tinue  to  bless  millions,  yet  unborn,  as  they  have  blessed  us. 


THE  ADDRESS  OF  HON.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS 
BEFORE  THE  PRIZE  DECLAIMERS  OF  THE  SOPHO 
MORE  CLASS  AT  THE  COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE 
STATE  UNIVERSITY,  IN  AUGUST,  1859,  AT  ATHENS, 
GEORGIA. 

YOUNG  GENTLEMEN  :  In  the  order  of  these  exercises,  it  is  now  my 
part  to  present  to  two  of  your  number  the  prize  medals  for  which 
all  of  you  yesterday  entered  into  such  spirited,  honorable,  and 
praiseworthy  competition.  Those  whose  province  it  was  to  decide 
upon  the  merits  of  that  contest  have  rendered  their  award,  and  it 
is  for  me  now  to  make  that  award  known,  and  to  deliver  the 
medals  according  to  their  judgment. 

Custom  on  such  occasions  warrants  the  expectation  that  the 
performance  of  this  duty  will  be  accompanied  by  some  prefatory 
remarks.  In  yielding  to  this,  however,  the  lateness  of  the  hour, 
the  protracted  detention  of  this  large  and  alread3T  wearied  audi 
ence,  and  especially  your  own  impatience  to  hear  the  result,  on 
which  your  minds  must  be  now  hanging  in  anxious  suspense,  all 
alike  admonish  and  prompt  me  to  be  brief. 

To  37ou  all  it  is  an  interesting  occasion.  The  most  so,  per 
haps,  you  have  ever  experienced.  It  is  one  of  those  events  which 


652  COMMENCEMENT   ADDRESS. 

makes  its  mark,  and  which  will  form  an  epoch  in  the  life  of  each 
of  you,  to  which  the  rnind  hereafter  will  often  revert  and  look 
back  with  pleasure,  I  trust,  as  years  roll  on,  and  as  new  scenes 
and  other  conflicts  open  up  before  you.  You  have  each  just 
made  your  debut  upon  the  public  stage — your  first  essay  for 
distinction  before  the  world — your  first  effort  in  life's  great 
struggle.  To  know  the  result  of  this  effort  ?  What  success  it  has 
met  with  ?  How  it  has  been  appreciated  in  comparison  with  that 
of  your  rivals?  These  are  thoughts  and  questions  which  now 
agitate  your  breasts,  and  must  cause  the  most  intense  anxiety  to 
each  of  you.  This  is  natural.  This  anxiety  is  not  confined  to 
yourselves.  The  same  feeling  to  some  extent  fills  the  breasts  of 
many  of  those  now  here,  who  witnessed  that  effort  so  strenuously 
exerted  by  all.  There  are,  perhaps,  many  now  here  who  feel 
almost  as  much  interest  in  hearing  the  decision  of  the  judges 
upon  it  as  you  do  yourselves.  Parents,  brothers,  sisters,  precep 
tors,  or  other  dear  friends,  whose  whole  souls  are  ever  alive  and 
quick  to  every  thing  that  relates  to  your  welfare,  and  success  in 
life.  Think  not  that  because  you  are  yet  young,  that  you  are  not 
the  object  of  most  anxious  care  and  thought  by  many  who  keep 
constant  watch  on  your  progress.  Even  strangers,  who  never 
saw  you  before,  could  not  remain  indifferent  and  disinterested 
spectators  of  such  an  exhibition  as  you  displa^yed  of  youthful 
emulation  in  skill,  tact,  art,  and  energy;  each  striving  for  the  lead 
while  all  were  so  close,  so  nearly  equal,  as  to  leave  the  mind  in 
hesitation,  if  not  doubt,  to  whom  the  honors  should  be  given. 
Many  of  these  are  also  here  now  partaking  of  the  same  anxious 
expectation. 

To  both  parties  of  you,  the  successful  and  the  unsuccessful 
respectively,  I  would  say  a  word  in  advance  before  making  the 
final  announcement.  To  the  two  to  whom  the  prizes  have  been 
awarded,  that  word  is,  be  not  too  much  elated  by  your  triumph 
when  you  hear  it ;  be  not  puffed  up  or  vain-glorious  at  it.  Recollect 
that  this  is  but  the  first  rencontre — the  first  pass  or  tilt  in  the 
grand  tournament  of  life.  Intellectual  struggles  of  this  character, 
in  some  respects,  are  like  those  physical  and  athletic  exercises 
and  sports  so  celebrated  amongst  the  ancients.  The  objects  in 
both  are  similar.  In  those  the  development  of  the  physical  facul 
ties  was  looked  to  ;  in  these  the  development  of  the  mental.  And 
in  the  former  your  classical  reading  has  taught  you  that  the  first 
advantage  gained,  was  not  always  followed  by  ultimate  victory. 
That  is  the  great  prize  to  which  all  of  you  should  mainly  look. 
Gyas,  you  recollect,  in  the  boat  contest  so  graphically  depicted  by 
Virgil,  took  the  lead  far  ahead  at  the  outset,  but  Cloanthus  was 
foremost  at  the  close  of  the  race.  Entullus  blundered  and  fell, 
when  he  first  sought  close  quarters  with  his  antagonist.  The 
shouts  of  the  multitude  proclaimed  the  victory  to  Dares.  But 
Kutnllus,  rising  from  his  fall  with  renewed  spirits  and  strength, 
not  only  recovered  himself  for  renewed  action,  but  finally  bors 


COMMENCEMENT    ADDRESS.  653 

off  the  palm.  So  Euryalus  the  third  at  first  out  of  six  in  the  foot 
race  came  off  winner  in  the  end.  The  end  with  you  is  not  yet. 
This  is  but  the  beginning  of  that  race  upon  which  you  have 
entered.  Wear  your  honors,  therefore,  with  that  modesty  and 
dignity  which  always  comport  so  well  with  real  and  true  merit ; 
and  with  this  abiding  reflection  deeply  impressed  upon  your 
minds,  that  more  will  be  expected  of  you  hereafter,  and  that  if 
by  chance  you  should  fall  behind  on  the  next  trial,  your  chagrin 
will  be  greatly  enhanced  ~by  the  remembrance  of  any  undue  exul 
tation  on  this  occasion. 

To  those  of  you  who  have  been  unsuccessful,  who  by  necessity 
constitute  much  the  larger  number,  for  the  prizes  here,  as  the 
honors  of  the  world  are  few  compared  with  the  number  of  compet 
itors  for  them,  hence  their  great  value  and  the  high  estimation 
placed  upon  them.  To  you  who  have  in  the  opinion  of  the  judges 
come  short  of  your  rivals  in  this  your  first  effort,  the  word  I 
would  say,  is,  be  not  discouraged  at  this  result.  To  you  I  would 
also  repeat,  this  is  not  the  ultimate  goal  of  that  ambition,  which 
in  your  young  breasts  is  just  beginning  to  quicken  into  life.  This 
is  not  the  end  of  that  race  upon  which  you  and  your  rivals  have 
entered.  It  is  but  the  first  step  in  that  long  and  arduous  road, 
that  leads  to  Fame's  proud  Temple  that  shines  afar.  The  young 
eaglets  that  upon  the  first  trial  of  wing  from  their  eyries  may  not  be 
able  to  bear  themselves  up  so  well  as  their  better  fledged  fellows 
may,  nevertheless,  an  on  rise  equally  high  as  they,  and  move  as  grace 
fully  and  majestically  in  those  upper  regions  into  which  none  but 
eagles  soar.  And  many  a  man  has  been  actually  scraped  and 
coughed  down  in  legislative  assemblies,  who  afterward  has  made 
thrones  and  kingdoms  tremble  under  the  powers  of  his  eloquence. 
The  most  renowned  of  all  orators  not  only  gained  no  distinction, 
took  no  prize,  but  was  hissed  on  his  first  effort  before  the  public. 
And  the  acknowledged  chief  of  all  declaimers  England  has  ever 
produced,  was  ridiculed  and  lampooned  most  severely  upon  his 
first  appearance  on  a  London  stage.  Let  your  ardor  therefore 
be  not  in  the  least  degree  checked  or  abated.  Let  it  rather  be 
rekindled  with  renewed  energies.  Let  your  spirits  react  as  the 
palm  tree,  from  which  the  emblem  of  victory  was  chosen  of  old, 
"  adversus  pondus  resurget  et  sursum  nititur."  Let  your  energies 
rise  against  any  and  all  opposing  weights.  If  you  feel  the  internal 
fires  glow  aright— if  you  have  the  firm  and  deep  resolve  within, 
based  upon  the  essential  requisites  of  truth,  honor,  and  integrity, 
be  assured  that  nothing  is  wanting  for  ultimate  success,  but 
length  of  days,  sound  bodies  and  minds,  and  continued  effort 
Effort  is  necessary  fo^success  in  all  things.  In  oratory,  as  well 
as  in  every  thing  else,  it  can  be  attained  only  by  application,  in 
dustry,  toil,  and  perseverance,  "  Labor  omnia  vincit,"  "  Fortuna 
favet  fortibus  et  patientibus."  Fortune  favors  those  who  are  not 
only  brave,  but  who  can  stand  the  exertion  and  fatigues  of  the 
campaign.  Patience  is  a  master  virtue.  Not  that  calm,  inert. 


654  COMMENCEMENT   ADDKESS. 

resignation  of  mind  sometimes  meant  by  the  word,  but  that 
strong  quality  of  perseverance  and  constancy  in  labor  and  exer 
tion,  which  it  legitimately  imports.  "  Patior"  is  its  origin,  and 
it  implies  all  that  this  word  in  the  original  expresses.  He  that 
would  succeed  in  any  thing  must  cultivate  this  quality.  It  signi 
fies  not  only  the  faculty  which  enables  to  bear  crosses  and  disap 
pointments,  such  as  this  may  be  to  you,  but  that  which  sustains 
physical  endurance,  bodily  privation,  self  denial,  and  which 
underlies  all  the  nobler  traits  of  character. 

"  What  makes  the  hero,  an  heroic  mind ! 
Expressed  in  action  and  in  endurance  proved." 

It  implies  a  rigid  self-knowledge  and  self-control.  The  first  great 
essential  for  you  is  to  know  yourselves  thoroughly — your  capaci 
ties  and  incapacities — your  capabilities  and  incapabilities — as 
well  as  your  aims,  objects,  and  wishes.  Goethe,  the  German 
poet  and  philosopher,  has  said  that  he  is  fortunate  who  early  in 
life  learns  the  immeasurable  distance  between  the  objects  of  his 
desires  and  his  capabilities  to  attain  them.  This  knowledge, 
this  survey  of  the  ground,  like  the  general's  reconnoissance  of  the 
Held  on  which  the  battle  is  to  be  fought,  acquaints  one  who  would 
win,  with  all  the  difficulties,  obstacles,  and  impediments  that  lie 
in  the  way,  and  enables  him  to  avoid  or  surmount  them  as  con 
venience  or  necessity  may  require.  With  this  knowledge — with 
self-control  and  self-discipline  firmly  planted  upon  correct  princi 
ples — set  your  mark  where  you  please,  high  or  low,  with  con 
tinued,  enduring  effort  fear  not  ultimate  success.  Let  your  motto 
be  "  Nil  desperanclum  est." 

And  now,  young  gentlemen,  a  word  to  all  of  you.  I  feel  that 
I  but  speak  the  common  sentiment  of  that  portion  of  this  audi 
ence  who  witnessed  your  exhibition,  when  I  assure  you  that  all 
of  you  acquitted  yourselves  well,  and  gave  an  earnest  and  promise 
for  the  future  that  ought  to  be  most  gratifying  not  only  to  you 
and  your  immediate  friends,  but  to  those  under  whose  charge 
you  have  been  trained  in  these  your  first  lessons  in  elocution. 
Declamation  is,  as  far  as  you  have  as  yet  ventured  in  exercising 
it,  that  wonderful  gift  which  has  and  ever  will  rank  so  high  in 
the  estimation  of  mankind.  This  part  you  have  done  well.  But 
oratory  in  its  wider  and  more  comprehensive  sense  embraces 
excellence  in  this  as  well  as  in  many  other  things.  In  its  analy 
sis  it  has  been  divided  into  four  parts ;  invention,  disposition, 
elocution,  and  delivery.  Another,  and  as  it  seems  to  me,  a  bet 
ter,  classification  of  its  parts  might  be  into  thought,  method,  and 
utterance — or  ideas,  their  arrangement  an^.  the  manner  of  their 
presentation.  Declamation,  with  all  its  accompaniments  of  voice, 
attitude,  and  action,  is  but  the  utterance  or  presentation  of 
thoughts  previously  methodized  or  arranged.  This  requires  the 
power  so  to  catch  the  spirit,  so  to  moderate  the  voice,  so  to  suit 
the  action  to  the  word  as  to  impart  not  only  the  meaning  of  the 


COMMENCEMENT   ADDRESS.  655 

author  but  his  passions  and  emotions.  This  is  elocution  in  its 
proper  sense,  and  is  itself  a  rare  and  high  attainment.  This  is 
the  field  in  which  the  actor  figures.  Herein  lies  his  whole  art. 
It  was  in  this  Garrick  won  all  his  laurels.  It  was  in  this  that 
Mrs.  Siddons  so  excelled  all  women  who  lived  before  or  since. 
It  is  in  this  that  Forest  and  Macready  and  others  upon  the  stage, 
in  our  day,  have  gained  such  world-wide  reputation.  It  is  an 
art,  however,  of  the  same  grade  relatively  as  that  of  the  perform 
ance  barely  in  music,  either  vocal  or  instrumental.  Giardini, 
Garcia,  Paginini,  Jenny  Lind,  and  other  masters  and  queens  of 
the  opera,  the  orchestra,  and  concerts  have  left  names  that  will 
long  survive  them.  They  possessed  talent  and  genius  of  no 
ordinary  character — yet  their  genius  falls  far  below  that  of  Cor- 
relli,  Beethoven,  Haydn,  and  Mozart.  These  originated  and 
created  as  well  as  executed.  So  it  is  with  real  orators.  Those 
who  not  only  move  masses  but  impress  their  ideas  upon  the 
world,  as  Massillon,  Bossuet,  Whitfield,  and  Wesley.  Those 
who  control  the  destinies  of  nations,  as  Demosthenes,  Cicero, 
Pericles,  Mirabeau,  Chatham,  Burke,  our  own  Patrick  Henry, 
Webster,  Clay,  Calhoun,  and  he,  though  last  not  least,  whose 
recent  loss  the  whole  country  now  mourns,  the  most  accom 
plished  and  gifted  Choate,  rise  to  a  much  higher  order  of  genius 
than  those  whose  fame  rests  solely  upon  elocution.  They  were 
not  actors  merely — not  performers  only — they  were  originators. 
This  species  of  oratory — this  transcendent  power  requires  not 
only  utterance,  or  the  elocution  of  words  properly  arranged,  but 
something  higher — the  faculty  of  commanding  thought  —  the 
power  of  generating  and  producing  ideas  with  all  the  necessary 
imagery  and  illustration  to  give  them  force  and  effect.  Commu 
nities,  societies,  and  States  are  governed  by  ideas.  He  who 
gives  the  idea  on  any  occasion  in  science,  in  art,  in  philosophy, 
in  government  or  in  religion,  is  the  man  of  the  occasion.  And 
he  who  combines  originality  and  fitness  of  idea,  with  the  powers 
of  language  and  manner,  to  impress  its  truth  and  force,  is  the 
orator  of  the  occasion.  What  the  poet  has  so  well  said  of  all  of 
us,  is  particularly  true  of  him  who  excels  in  this  sphere — 

"  We  live  in  deeds  not  years — 

In  thoughts  not  breaths  : 
##**#« 

He  most  lives  who  thinks  most — 
Feels  noblest — acts  the  best." 

To  attain  this  highest  position  amongst  men  or  even  to  approxi 
mate  it,  requires  the  greatest  and  most  extensive  acquirements 
of  the  mind.  It  requires  qualifications  of  the  heart  as  well  as 
the  head.  The  moral  attributes  must  be  sound  as  well  as  the 
intellectual.  There  must  above  all  be  integrity  of  purpose. 
There  must  be  that  earnestness  of  soul  which  springs  alone  from 
the  utmost  sincerity  of  motive  These  can  never  be  affected. 


656  LETTER   TO    HON.   J.    J.    CRITTEXDEN. 

They  cannot  be  feigned.  They  must  be  real  and  genuine.  Who 
ever  would  make  others  feel  must  himself  feel.  This  is  within 
the  reach  of  the  actor.  But  whoever  would  convince  others  of 
some  new  truth  must  himself  first  be  imbued  with  that  truth.  It 
was  Paul's  profound  conviction  of  the  truths  he  uttered,  and  the 
earnestness  with  which  he  proclaimed  them,  which  gave  that 
power  to  his  speech  that  made  Felix  tremble  upon  his  throne. 
This  is  above  and  beyond  the  power  of  the  mere  artist.  Barron, 
the  celebrated  actor  in  France,  after  hearing  Massilloii  upon  one 
occasion,  feeling  his  inferiority  in  this  particular,  remarked  to 
his  associates  :  "  We  are  but  players,  he  is  an  orator." 

Whoever,  therefore,  in  the  pulpit,  in  the  forum,  at  the  bar,  in 
the  public  councils,  or  on  the  hustings,  would  lead  others  to  the 
adoption  of  truth  upon  any  matter  or  question,  must  himself  first 
see  it  and  feel  its  power. 

With  these  suggestions  let  me  in  conclusion,  young  gentlemen, 
barely  add,  if  you  have  high  aspirations  for  ultimate  success  in 
that  career  upon  wrhich  you  are  now  only  on  the  threshold,  spare 
no  labor,  no  toil.  Study  yourselves — know  your  defects  and  im 
perfections  as  well  as  your  excellencies.  Cultivate  the  moral  as 
well  as  the  mental  attributes,  and  you  may  all  yet  upon  another 
arena,  after  you  shall  have  left  these  halls,  secure  to  yourselves 
other  memorials  of  distinction  far  more  to  be  prized  than  these 
medals. 


LETTER  TO  HON.  J.  J.  CRITTENDEN,  OF  KENTUCKY. 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  JANUARY  21,  1860. 

MY  DEAR  SIR: — Your  highly  esteemed  favor  of  the  13th  inst. 
was  duly  received  several  da}rs  ago — the  delay  of  my  answer 
has  been  occasioned  by  a  desire  to  see  the  pamphlet  of  Mr. 
Nicholas,  to  which  you  refer,  before  replying — that  did  not  reach 
me  until  last  night.  I  have  given  his  proposed  plan  of  change 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  the  clause  setting 
forth  the  mode  and  manner  of  electing  the  President  and  Yice- 
President,  a  very  careful  perusal,  but  have  not  had  time  to  give 
the  subject  that  calm  reflection  and  thought  which  would  be 
necessary  before  expressing  any  deliberate  or  mature  judgment 
upon  its  merits,  or  its  efficiency  in  correcting  existing  evils, 
which  experience  has  shown  to  be  incident  to  our  present  system. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  our  practice  has  deviated  immensely 
from  the  theory  of  our  government  in  the  election  of  these  highest 
officers.  The  colleges  of  electors  with  us  now  are  but  nominal 
bodies.  They  exercise  no  discretion  or  judgment  of  their  own 
whatever ;  their  duties  rise  no  higher  than  those  of  mere  clerks 


LETTER   TO   HON.   J.    J.   CRITTENDEN.  657 

in  the  registry  of  edicts  given  in  command  to  them,  or  whatever 
may  be  said  of  their  duties  under  the  constitution,  such  has  become 
the  character  of  their  office.  This  was  not  the  original  design,  how 
ever,  or  intention.  That  this  deviation  from  the  original  design 
is  attended  with  bad  consequences,  I  am  fully  convinced.  But 
how  the  evil  is  to  be  properly  corrected,  or  whether  it  can  be 
done  by  the  plan  proposed  by  Mr.  Nicholas,  or  by  any  other  that 
could  be  suggested,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  It  is  true  one 
class  of  evils  might  be  avoided,  if  it  were  practicable  to  get  any 
change'on  the  subject  made  ;  but  whether  new  ones,  quite  as  mis 
chievous  might  not  arise  under  any  change  that  might  be  made, 
is  the  question  ?  Human  foresight  seems  to  be  too  short  to  pro 
vide  against  all  dangerous  tendencies,  in  the  workings  of  any 
governmental  machinery  that  human  wisdom,  backed  by  the 
purest  patriotism,  may  undertake  to  put  in  operation.  The  works 
of  man,  in  forming  political  organizations,  seem  in  many  partic 
ulars  to  be  not  unlike  his  own  framework — his  own  physical 
organization — having  in  itself  the  seeds  of  its  own  dissolution. 
The  very  laws  of  life  which  for  awhile  evolve  and  develop  such 
power,  health,  vigor,  and  strength,  tend  necessarily  to  such  aber- 
ations  as  in  the  end  to  effect  their  own  suspension.  Perpetual 
motions  in  governments  need  never  be  looked  for  anjr  more  than 
in  mechanics.  Indeed,  I  very  much  doubt  if  those  laws  in  nature 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as  permanent,  fixed,  and 
immutatable,  are  really  so ;  their  operations  are  only  perhaps  on 
too  large  a  scale  for  our  limited  observation  to  note  the  changes 
incident  to  their  action.  But  we  see  enough  to  know  that  all 
things  about  us  in  the  material  universe  are  not  now  as  they 
once  were ;  and  that  other  agencies  in  nature  than  those  now 
active  must  once  have  been  potent. 

But  enough  of  this  speculative  digression.  I  mean  by  it  simply 
to  express  the  opinion  that  perfection  nor  permanence  need  ever  be 
expected  in  any  system  of  government,  and  that  no  system  could 
be  devised  that  would  not  in  the  end  show  irreparable  defects ;  that 
such  will  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  ours  I  have  no  doubt,  no  more 
than  that  death  inevitably  awaits  every  living  organism  on  earth, 
whether  vegetable  or  animal.  But,  as  yet,  I  do  not  think  any 
such  irreparable  defect  has  exhibited  itself  in  our  system.  The 
end  witli  us,  I  trust,  is  not  yet — and  such  imperfections  as  expe 
rience  has  shown  do  exist,  it  is  the  part  of  patriotism  to  remedy 
and  rectify  as  far  as  possible.  Every  disease  or  ailment  that 
flesh  is  heir  to  is  not  necessarily  fatal.  So  it  is,  I  trust,  with  the 
ailments  our  body  politic  is  now  affected  with — the  statesman  as 
the  physician  should  resort  to  all  the  remedies  within  his  power 
and  skill.  Whether  the  one  proposed  by  Mr.  Nicholas  for  the 
particular  malady  he  alludes  to  would  be  proper,  as  I  have  stated, 
I  am  not  prepared  to  venture  an  opinion.  But  I  will  say  this, 
that  I  very  much  doubt  if  we  have  not  passed  the  period  in  our 
Kc^ublic's  life  when  any  amendment  of  the  constitution  is  practi- 
42 


658  LETTER  TO   HON.   J.   J.    CRITTENDEN. 

cable.  When  an}7,  however  apparently  proper,  could  be  made. 
Whether,  in  a  word,  for  the  balance  of  our  existence,  long  or 
short,  we  must  not  make  up  our  minds  to  get  along  as  well  as  we 
can,  and  do  the  best  we  can  with  the  constitution  as  it  is  ? 

This  is  the  opinion  to  which  I  am  strongly  inclined.  One  of 
the  evils  Mr.  Nicholas  intends  to  guard  against,  I  fear,  can  never 
be  avoided — that  is  party  spirit  and  party  organization.  This 
seems  to  be  a  necessary  incident  to  political  organization  itself — 
the  idea  of  having  the  one  without  the  other  approaches  a  Uto 
pian  dream.  Party  has  its  originating  principle  in  the*  philo 
sophy  of  mental  organization.  Mind  as  well  as  matter  is  gov 
erned  by  a  principle  of  polarity.  When  the  metallic  bar  receives 
the  magnetic  power  or  influence,  instantly  all  adjacent  ferrugin- 
eous  particles  array  themselves  toward  one  or  the  other  of  the 
antagonistic  poles.  So  with  the  minds  of  men,  however  quiet, 
calm,  and  perfectly  at  rest  they  may  be,  that  instant  a  new  idea, 
a  new  thought  is  presented,  or  a  new  question  is  started,  these 
minds,  by  a  law  beyond  their  control,  assume  their  normal  posi 
tion  toward  the  new  idea,  thought,  or  question — they  array  them 
selves  instantly  toward  it  upon  the  principle  of  polarity — some 
on  the  one  side  and  some  on  the  other.  This  is  so  in  small  cir 
cles  of  people,  and  in  large  ones — in  all  bodies  or  collections  of 
men.  In  small  affairs  as  well  as  great.  In  matters  of  government 
or  measures  relative  to  public  interest — we  see  it  in  counties, 
towns,  cities,  states,  and  empires.  It  is  an  all-pervading  princi 
ple — the  larger  the  mass,  the  greater  the  number,  the  more 
intense  is  the  action  of  this  principle,  especially  upon  great  ques 
tions  affecting  the  interests  of  all,  as  every  leading  question  of 
governmental  policy  must  of  necessity  be.  All  free  governments, 
if  you  will  allow  the  illustration,  are  not  unlike  a  huge  magnetic- 
galvanic  battery.  Each  mind,  under  the  influence  of  this  univer 
sal  principle  of  polarity,  contributes  its  mite  toward  producing 
the  whitest  and  intensest  heat  of  all  other  agencies.  This  under 
our  government  cannot  be  avoided.  A  wise  man  should  not 
attempt  to  avoid  it,  if  for  no  other  reason  because  it  is  impossi 
ble  ;  but  he  should  endeavor  to  control  it  for  wise  and  good  pur 
poses — useful  ends — just  as  the  man  of  .science  controls  the 
agencies  in  his  battery  in  sending  news  as  quick  as  lightning,  or 
in  discovering  new  truths  in  the  mysteries  of  nature  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind.  Opposition  of  thought,  antagonism  of  idea, 
opinion,  and  judgment,  upon  which  all  party  organization  is 
founded,  can  no  more  be  avoided  in  any  system  of  human  society 
than  magnetism  and  polarity  can  be  eradicated  or  removed  from 
the  material  world.  It  is  an  inherent  quality  in  the  object  itself. 

But,  again,  I  find  myself  going,  perhaps,  too  deeply  into  the 
philosophy  of  things.  I  fear  I  shall  weary  you,  if  I  do  not  quite 
bore  you,  with  such  abstract  disquisitions,  and,  therefore,  will 
say  no  more  in  that  view. 

In   reply  to  another  portion  of  your  letter  referring  to  the 


LETTER  TO   HON.  J.   J.   CRITTENDEN.  659 

prospect  of  remedying  some  of  the  existing  evils  growing  out  of 
existing  party  organizations,  by  the  formation  of  a  new  party 
upon  the  basis  you  mention,  with  the  hope  of  rallying  all  con 
servative  men  to  the  support  of  "  the  constitution,  the  Union  and 
the  execution  of  the  laws,"  etc.,  I  can  only  say  that  I  do  not 
think  it  practicable.  There  must  be  a  vital  and  germinating  prin 
ciple  in  every  embryo  organism,  as  well  as  in  all  embryo  parties, 
to  secure  growth  and  development.  There  must  be  a  nucleus 
around  which  a  crystallization  of  even  unorganized  matter  is 
formed.  The  bare  announcement  "  of  the  constitution,  the  Union 
and  the  execution  of  the  laws,"  is  not  enough.  With  us  ques 
tions  of  policy,  measures,  laws  to  be  passed,  will  of  necessity, 
and  ought  to  be,  the  controlling,  germinating  principle  in  the 
organization  of  party.  This  is  the  case  in  all  governments  where 
the  people  take  part  in  them.  The  present  party  organizations 
in  this  country  are  not  the  result  of  accident  or  chance  or  design  ; 
they  are  the  legitimate  result  of  the  operation  of  causes  beyond 
the  control  of  those  who  might  wish  it  were  otherwise.  They  are 
founded  upon  the  law  I  have  mentioned.  They  spring  from 
questions  of  public  policy.  They  arise  out  of  the  action  of  the 
government,  or  the  proposed  action  of  the  government,  upon 
great  questions  affecting  great  interests,  and  they  will  necessa 
rily  exist  until  those  questions  are  settled.  If  the  "  conflict"  be 
"irrepressible,"  then  they  will  last  to  the  end.  This  I  regard  as 
a  philosophical  truth,  that  statesmen  and  patriots  ought  no  more 
to  ignore  or  forget  than  that  water  runs  down  hill,  and  that  tides 
ebb  and  flow. 

If  such  a  party  as  you  speak '  of  should  be  organized,  and 
should  carry  the  country  in  an  election,  its  own  elements  would 
go  to  pieces  on  the  first  meeting  of  Congress  upon  the  questions 
of  practical  legislation.  These  are  the  living  questions  which 
must  give  life  to  party  organizations.  Parties  must  and  will 
form  on  questions  of  legislation  as  they  arise.  As  all  men  stand 
on  these  questions  for  or  against  the  proposed  action,  they  will, 
of  necessity,  fall  into  one  or  the  other  ranks  of  party  classifica 
tion.  The  real  conflict  in  this  country  now,  as  I  understand  it, 
is,  whether  the  powers  of  the  common  government  shall  be 
directed  against  the  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  a  number 
of  the  States  of  the  Union — whether  the  common  government 
shall  so  direct  its  policy,  foreign  and  domestic,  as  to  change  and 
ultimately  eradicate  those  institutions  ?  That  is  the  whole  ques 
tion  in  a  nutshell ;  and  I  see  no  way  to  get  rid  of  party  organi 
zation  on  this  idea  until  the  good  men  and  true,  throughout  the 
Union,  shall  combine,  and  by  their  united  energy  and  patriotism 
put  that  question  at  rest  definitely  and  forever.  That  being  a 
vital  question  to  so  large  a  portion  of  the  country,  it  must  neces 
sarily  swallow  up  all  other  ^questions  until  it  is  out  of  the  way. 
For  myself,  I  have  never  looked  at  this  "conflict"  as  "irrepressi 
ble"  at  all,  if  the  general  government  in  its  action  shall  be  con- 


660  LETTER   TO   HON.    J.   J.    CR1TTENDEN". 

fined  to  its  appropriate  sphere.  I  see  nothing  in  the  diversity 
of  interests  and  pursuits,  and  institutions  of  this  great  and  ex 
tensive  county  at  all  inconsistent  with  its  united  prosperity, 
peace,  happiness,  and  increasing  growth  and  power  under  the 
constitution  as  it  is.  I  do  not  look  upon  this  diversity  as  one 
of  the  fatal  inherent  defects  of  our  system.  The  difficulties 
that  now  beset  and  environ  us  do  not  arise  from  any  weakness  of 
the  craft  on  which  we  are  borne — the  ship  is  strong  enough — the 
danger  is  not  there.  The  trouble  is  with  the  crew — with  the  men 
to  whom  her  safe  guidance  is  confided — with  our  public  men 
everywhere,  in  .Congress  as  well  as  in  our  State  legislatures  and 
party  conventions.  We  have  too  many  demagogues  and  too 
few  statesmen.  There  is  not  that  loyalty  to  principle  which 
characterized  the  men  of  the  past  generation.  Men  seek  office 
now,  even  the  highest,  for  the  honor  they  may  derive  from  it, 
and  not  with  any  view  to  the  honor  they  ought  by  holding  it,  to 
confer  upon  it  in  the  able  and  faithful  discharge  of  its  duties. 
These  are  our  real  troubles.  They  augur  a  fearful  degeneracy  of 
the  times  and  of  the  people.  They  spring  from  those  who  con 
trol  and  seek  to  control  the  government — not  the  form  or  frame 
work  of  the  government  itself,  but  its  moving  power — and  they 
cannot  be  got  rid  of  but  by  elevating  the  people — by  bringing 
about  a  change  of  their  sentiments.  It  cannot  be  done  by  put- 
ing  them  into  different  party  classifications.  An  appeal  to  their 
virtue,  their  intelligence,  and  their  patriotism  is  the  only  hope. 
If  this  fails,  no  hope  is  left — destruction  will  soon  be  upon  us — 
and  that  "  end"  which  I  so  sincerely  trust  may  not  come,  at  least 
in  my  day,  will  speedity  and  inevitably  follow.  This  is  my  delib 
erate  judgment.  I  am  now  out  of  public  life,  and  intend  to 
remain  out  the  balance  of  my  days,  but  I  cannot  cease  to  look  on 
passing  events  but  with  the  deepest  interest.  I  must  ask  to  be 
excused  for  writing  to  you  at  such  length — the  truth  is  I  did  not 
intend  to  do  so  when  I  commenced.  But  when  I  begin  to  scrib 
ble  it  is  about  as  difficult  for  me  to  stop  as  it  is  to  start.  Permit 
me  to  say,  I  find  it  much  more  agreeable  to  look  on  in  retirement 
at  what  is  going  on  in  Washington,  than  to  be  a  participant  in 
the  excitements  there.  I  often  think  of  you,  and  the  many 
pleasant  hours  and  days  we  have  spent  together.  My  kindest 
regards  attend  you  forever.  I  should  be  pleased  to  hear  from 
you  often. 

Yours  most  sincerely  and  truly, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 
HON.  JOHN  J.  CRITTENDEN,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


LETTER   ON    THE   CHARLESTON    RUPTURE.  661 


LETTER  OF  THIRTEEN  GENTLEMEN  OF  MACON, 
AND  MR.  STEPHENS'  REPLY  UPON  THE  CHARLES 
TON  RUPTURE,  MAY  9,  1860. 

MACON,  GA.,  MAY  5th,  1860. 

SIR  :  We  are  alarmed  by  the  state  of  things  developed  in  the 
democratic  convention  at  Charleston.  The  discord  and  disorgan 
izing  spirit  which  prevailed  there  threaten  the  integrity  and  over 
throw  of  the  democratic  party.  We  are  filled  with  painful 
forebodings  at  the  prospect  of  the  democratic  party  being 
slaughtered  in  the  house  of  its  friends — a  catastrophe  which  will 
put  in  equal  peril  the  Union  of  the  States  and  the  safety  of  the 
South.  Clinging  to  the  fate  and  fortunes  of  both,  we  invoke 
your  counsels  in  this  crisis.  We  believe  the  democracy  of 
Georgia  should  be  represented  in  the  adjourned  national  conven 
tion  at  Baltimore.  Will  you  please  give  us  your  views  candidly 
and  promptly  for  publication  ? 

Your  friends  and  fellow-citizens, 

ROBERT  COLLINS,  JOHN  J.  GRESHAM,  JAS.  W.  ARMSTRONG, 
JAMES  DEAN,  JOHN  B.  Ross,  PULASKI  S.  HOLT, 
A.  E.  COCHRAN,  W.  K.  DEGRAFFENREID,  SAMUEL  B. 
HUNTER,  JOSEPH  CLISBY,  THOMAS  L.  Ross,  JAMES  A. 

NlSBET,  WM.  LUNDY. 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  MAY  9,  1860. 

GENTLEMEN  :  Your  letter  of  the  5th  inst.  was  received  last 
night,  and  I  promptly  respond  to  your  call  as  clearly  and  fully 
as  a  heavy  press  of  business  engagements  will  permit.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  be  no  less  pointed  and  explicit  than  candid.  You 
clo  not,  in  my  judgment,  overestimate  the  importance  of  the  ques 
tions  now  pressing  upon  the  public  mind,  growing  out  of  the 
disruption  of  the  Charleston  convention.  While  I  was  not 
greatly  surprised  at  that  result,  considering  the  elements  of  its 
composition,  and  the  general  distemper  of  the  times,  still  I 
deeply  regret  it,  and,  with  you,  look  with  intense  interest  to  the 
consequences.  What  is  done  cannot  be  undone  or  amended ; 
that  must  remain  irrevocable.  It  would,  therefore,  be  as  useless, 
as  ungracious,  to  indulge  in  any  reflections,  as  to  whose  fault  the 
rupture  was  owing  to.  Perhaps,  and  most  probably,  undue 
excitement  and  heat  of  passion,  in  pursuit  of  particular  ends 
connected  with  the  elevation  or  overthrow  of  particular  rivals  for 
preferment,  more  than  any  strong  desire,  guided  by  cool  judg 
ment,  so  necessary  on  such  occasions  to  advance  the  public  good, 
was  the  real  cause  of  the  rupture.  Be  that  as  it  may,  however, 
what  is  now  to  be  done,  and  what  is  the  proper  course  to  be  taken? 
To  my  mind  the  course  seems  to  be  clear. 

A  State  convention  should  be  called  at  an  early  day — and  that 
convention  should  consider  the  whole  subject  calmly,  and  dispas- 


662  LETTER    ON   THE   CHARLESTON    RUPTURE. 

sionately,  with  "the  sober  second  thought,"  and  determine 
whether  to  send  a  representation  to  Richmond  or  to  Baltimore. 
The  correct  determination  of  this  question,  as  I  view  it,  will 
depend  upon  another ;  and  that  is,  whether  the  doctrine  of  non 
intervention  by  Congress,  with  slavery  in  the  territories,  ought  to 
be  adhered  to,  or  abandoned  by  the  South.  This  is  a  very  grave 
and  serious  question,  and  ought  not  to  be  decided  rashly  or 
intemperately.  No  such  small  matters,  as  the  promotion  of  this 
or  that  individual,  however  worthy  or  unworthy,  ought  to  enter 
into  its  consideration.  It  is  a  great  subject  of  public  policy, 
affecting  the  vast  interests  of  the  present  and  the  future.  It  may 
be  unnecessary,  and  entirely  useless,  for  me  to  obtrude  my  views 
upon  this  question,  in  advance  of  the  meeting  of  such  convention, 
upon  whom  its  decision  may  primarily  devolve.  I  cannot,  how 
ever,  comply  with  your  request,  without  doing  so  to  a  limited 
extent,  at  least.  This,  I  shall  do.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I 
assume,  as  an  unquestioned  and  unquestionable  fact,  that  non 
intervention,  as  stated,  has  been  for  many  years  received,  recog 
nized,  and  acted  upon,  as  the  settled  doctrine  of  the  South.  By 
non-intervention,  I  mean  the  principle,  that  Congress  shall  pass 
no  law  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  either  for  or 
against  it,  in  any  way — that  they  shall  not  interfere  or  act  upon 
it  at  all — or,  in  the  express  words  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  great 
southern  leader,  that  Congress  shall  "leave  the  whole  subject 
where  the  constitution  and  the  great  principles  of  self-govern 
ment  place  it."  This  has  been  eminently  a  southern  doctrine. 
It  was  announced  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  his  speech,  in  the  Senate, 
on  the  27th  of  June,  1848 ;  and,  after  two  years  of  discussion, 
was  adopted  as  the  basis  of  the  adjustment  finally  made  in  1850. 
It  was  the  demand  of  the  South,  put  forth  by  the  South,  and 
since  its  establishment  has  been  again  and  again  affirmed  and  re 
affirmed  as  the  settled  policy  of  the  South,  by  party  conventions 
and  State  legislatures,  in  every  form  that  a  people  can  give 
authoritative  expression  to  their  will  and  wishes.  This  cannot 
now  be  matter  of  dispute.  It  is  history,  as  indelibly  fixed  upon 
the  record  as  the  fact  that  the  colony  of  Georgia  was  settled 
under  the  auspices  of  Oglethorpe,  or  that  the  war  of  the  American 
revolution  was  fought  in  resistance  to  the  unjust  claim  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  British  Parliament. 

I  refer  to  this  matter  of  history  connected  with  the  subject 
under  consideration,  barely  as  a  starting  point — to  show  how  we 
stand  in  relation  to  it.  It  is  not  a  new  question.  It  has  been  up 
before,  and  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  it  has  been  decided — 
decided  and  settled  just  as  the  South  asked  that  it  should  be — 
not,  however,  without  great  effort  and  a  prolonged  struggle.  The 
question  now  is,  shall  the  South  abandon  her  own  position  in  that 
decision  and  settlement  ?  This  is  the  question  virtually  presented 
by  the  action  of  the  secede rs  from  the  Charleston  convention,  and 
the  ground*  upon  which  they  based  their  action  ;  or  stated  in  other 


LETTER   ON   THE   CHARLESTON"   RUPTURE.  663 

words,  it  amounts  to  this :  whether  the  southern  States,  after  all 
that  has  taken  place  on  the  subject,  should  now  reverse  their  pre 
vious  course,  and  demand  Congressional  intervention  for  the 
protection  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  as  a  condition  of  their 
remaining  longer  in  the  Union  ?  For  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it 
would  be  considered  Toy  all  as  the  most  mischievous  folly  to  make 
the  demand,  unless -we  intend  to  push  the  issue  to  its  ultimate 
and  legitimate  results.  Shall  the  South,  then,  make  this  demand 
of  Congress,  and  when  made,  in  case  of  failure  to  obtain  it,  shall 
she  secede  from  the  Union  as  a  portion  of  her  delegates  (some 
under  instructions,  and  some  from  their  own  free  will,)  seceded 
from  the  convention,  on  their  failure  to  get  it  granted  there  ? 

Thus  stands  the  naked  question,  as  I  understand  it,  presented 
by  the  action  of  the  seceders,  in  its  full  dimensions — its  length, 
breadth,  and  depth,  in  all  its  magnitude. 

It  is  presented  not  to  the  democratic  party  alone ;  it  is  true  a 
convention  of  that  party  may  first  act  on  it,  but  it  is  presented  to 
the  country,  to  the  whole  people  of  the  South,  of  all  parties.  And 
men  of  all  parties  should  duly  and  timely  consider  it,  for  they  may 
all  have  to  take  sides  on  it,  sooner  or  later. 

It  rises  in  importance  high  above  any  party  organization  of  the 
present  da}',  and  it  may,  and  ought  to,  if  need  be,  sweep  them  all 
from  the  board.  My  judgment  is  against  the  demand.  If  it 
were  a  new  question,  presented  in  its  present  light,  for  the  first 
time,  my  views  upon  it  might  be  different  from  what  they  are. 
It  is  known  to  }^ou  and  the  country  that  the  policy  of  non-interven 
tion,  as  established  at  the  instance  of  the  South  was  no  favorite 
one  of  mine.  As  to  my  position  upon  it,  and  the  doctrine  now 
revived,  when  they  were  original  and  open  questions,  as  well  as 
my  present  views,  I  will  cite  you  to  an  extract  of  a  speech  made 
by  me  in  Augusta,  in  July  last,  on  taking  final  leave  of  my  con 
stituents.  I  could  not  restate  them  more  clearly  or  more  briefly. 
In  speaking  of,  and  reviewing  this  matter,  I  then  said : 

"  And,  as  you  all  may  know  it,  (non-intervention,)  came  short 
of  what  I  wished.  It  was,  in  my  view,  not  the  full  measure  of 
our  rights — that  required,  in  my  judgment,  the  enactment  by 
Congress,  of  all  needful  laws  for  the  protection  of  slave  property 
in  the  territories,  so  long;  as  the  territorial  condition  lasted. 

"  But  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  South  was  against  that 
position.  It  was  said  that  we  who  maintained  it,  yielded  the 
whole  question  by  yielding  the  jurisdiction — and  that,  if  we  con 
ceded  the  power  to  protect,  we  necessarily  conceded  with  it  the 
power  to  prohibit.  This,  by  no  means,  followed,  in  my  judgment. 
But  such  was  the  prevailing  opinion.  And  it  was  not  until  it 
was  well  ascertained  that  a  large  majority  of  the  South  would 
not  ask  for,  or  even  vote  for,  Congressional  protection,  that 
those  of  us  who  were  for  it  yielded  to  non-intervention,  because, 
though  it  came  short  of  our  wishes,  yet  it  contained  no  sacrifice 
of  principle — had  nothing  aggressive  in  it,  and  secured,  for  all 


664  LETTER   ON    THE    CHARLESTON   RUPTURE. 

practical  purposes,  what  was  wanted ;  that  is,  the  unrestricted 
right  of  expansion  over  the  common  public  domain,  as  inclination, 
convenience,  or  necessity  may  require  on  the  part  of  our 
people. 

"  Thus  the  settlement  was  made — thus  the  record  stands,  and 
by  it  I  am  willing  still  to  stand,  as  it  was  fully  up  to  the  demands 
of  the  South,  through  her  representatives  at  the  time,  though  not 
sup  to  my  own  ;  and  as  by  it  the  right  of  expansion  to  the  extent 
of  population  and  capacity  is  amply  secured." 

In  this  you  clearly  perceive  what  I  think  of  the  proper  course 
now  to  be  taken  on  the  same  subject.  While  in  the  beginning  of 
this  controversy  I  was  not  favorable  to  the  policy  adopted,  yet  I 
finally  yielded  my  assent.  It  was  yielded  to  the  South — to  the 
prevailing  sentiment  of  my  own  section.  But  it  never  would 
have  been  yielded  if  I  had  seen  that  any  of  our  important  rights, 
or  any  principle  essential  to  our  safety  or  security,  could,  by  pos 
sibility,  result  from  its  operation.  Nor  would  I  now  be  willing 
to  abide  by  it,  if  I  saw  in  its  practical  workings  any  serious  injury 
to  the  South  likely  to  arise  from  it.  All  parties  in  the  South, 
after  the  settlement  was  made,  gave  it  the  sanction  of  their  acqui 
escence,  if  not  cordial  approval.  What,  then,  has  occurred  since 
to  cause  us  to  change  our  position  in  rel  tion  to  it  ?  Is  it  that 
those  of  the  North  who  stood  by  us  in  trie  struggle  from  1848  to 
1850,  did  afterward  stand  nobly  by  us  in  1854,  in  taking  off  the 
old  Congressional  restriction,  of  1820,  so  as  to  have  complete 
non-intervention  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  common 
public  domain  ?  Was  this  heroism  on  their  part,  in  adhering  to 
principle,  at  the  hazard  and  peril  of  their  political  lives  and  for 
tunes,  the  cause  of  present  complaint  ?  This  cannot  be  ;  for 
never  was  an  act  of  Congress  so  generally  and  so  unanimously 
hailed  with  delight  at  the  South,  as  this  one  was= — I  mean  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act  of  1854  ?  It  was  not  only  indorsed  by  all 
parties  in  Georgia,  but  every  one  who  did  not  agree  to  its  just 
provisions,  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  was  declared  to  be  unfit 
to  hold  party  associations  with  any  party  not  hostile  to  the  inter 
ests  of  the  South.  What,  then,  is  the  cause  of  complaint  now  ? 
Wherein  has  this  policy  worked  any  injury  to  the  South,  or 
wherein  is  it  likely  to  work  any  ?  , 

The  only  cause  of  complaint  I  have  heard  is,  that  non-interven 
tion,  as  established  in  1850,  and  carried  out  in  1854,  is  not  un 
derstood  at  the  North  as  it  is  at  the  South ;  that,  while  we  hold 
that,  in  leaving  "  the  whole  subject  where  the  constitution  and 
the  great  principles  of  self-government  place  it,"  the  common  ter 
ritories  are  to  remain  open  for  settlement  by  southern  people, 
with  their  slaves,  until  otherwise  provided  by  a  State  constitu 
tion,  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the  same  doctrine  at  the 
Xorth  maintain  that,  under  it,  the  people  of  an  organized  terri 
tory  can  protect  or  exclude  slave  property  before  the  formation 
of  a  State  constitution.  This  opinion,  or  construction  of  theirs, 


LETTER    ON   THE    CHARLESTON   RUPTURE.  665 

is  what  is  commonly  dubbed  "squatter  sovereignty."  Upon  this 
point  of  difference  in  construction  of  what  are  "the  great  princi 
ples  of  self-government,"  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  a  great  deal  has  been  said  and  written. 

We  have  heard  it  in  the  social  circle — in  the  forum — on  the 
hustings — and  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  The  newspapers  have 
literally  groaned  with  dissertations  on  it.  Pamphlets  have  been 
published  for  and  against  the  respective  sides.  Congress  has 
spent  months  in  its  discussion,  and  may  spend  as  many  years  as 
they  have  months,  without  arriving  at  any  more  definite  or  satis 
factory  conclusion  in  relation  to  it  than  Milton's  perplexed  spirits 
did  upon  the  abstruse  questions  on  which  they  held  such  high 
and  prolonged  debate  when  they  reasoned — 

"Of  Providence,  foreknowledge,  will,  and  fate  ; 
Fixed  fate,  free  will,  fore-knowledge,  absolute, 
And  found  no  end  in  wandering  mazes  lost." 

It  is  not  my  purpose  now  to  enter  the  list  of  these  disputants. 
My  own  opinions  upon  the  subject  are  known  ;  and  it  is  equally 
known  that  this  difference  of  opinion,  or  construction,  is  no  new 
thing  in  the  history  of  this  subject.  Those  who  hold  the  doctrine 
that  the  people  of  the  territories,  according  to  the  great  princi 
ples  of  self-government,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  can  exclude  slavery  by  territorial  law,  and  regulate  slave 
property  as  all  other  property,  held  the  same  views  they  now  do, 
when  we  agreed  with  them  to  stand  on  those  terms.  This  fact  is 
also  historical.  The  South  held,  that  under  the  constitution,  the 
territorial  legislatures  could  not  exclude  slavery — that  it  required 
an  act  of  sovereignty  to  do  this.  Some  gentlemen  of  the  North 
held,  as  they  now  do,  that  the  territorial  legislatures  could  con 
trol  slave  property  as  absolutely  as  they  could  any  other  kind  of 
property,  and  by  a  system  of  laws  could  virtually  exclude  slavery 
from  amongst  them,  or  prevent  its  introduction  if  they  chose. 

That  point  of  difference  it  was  agreed,  by  both  sides,  to  leave 
to  the  courts  to  settle.  There  was  no  cheat,  or  swindle,  or  fraud, 
or  double  dealing  in  it.  T-t  was  a  fair,  honorable,  and  constitu 
tional  adjustment  of  the  difference.  No  assertion  or  declaration 
by  Congress,  one  way  or  the  other,  could  have  affected  the  ques 
tion  in  the  least  degree  ;  for  if  the  people,  according  to  "  the 
great  principles  of  self-government"  under  the  constitution,  have 
the  right  contended  for  by  those  who  espouse  that  side  of  the 
argument,  then  Congress  could  not  and  cannot  deprive  them  of 
it.  And  if  Congress  did  not  have,  or  does  not  have,  the  power 
to  exclude  slavery  from  a  territory,  as  those  on  our  side  con 
tended,  and  still  contend  they  have  not,  then  they  could  not  and 
did  not  confer  it  upon  the  territorial  legislatures.  We  of  the 
South  held  that  Congress  had  not  the  power  to  exclude,  and 
could  not  delegate  a  power  they  did  not  possess — also,  that  the 
people  had  not  the  power  to  exclude  under  the  constitution,  and 


LETTER   ON   THE    CHARLESTON   RUPTURE. 

therefore  the  mutual  agreement  was  to  take  the  subject  out  of 
Congress,  and  leave  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  people, 
where  the  constitution  had  placed  it — with  the  courts.  This  is 
the  whole  of  it.  The  question  in  dispute  is  a  judicial  one,  and 
no  act  of  Congress,  nor  an}T  resolution  of  any  party  convention 
can  in  any  way  affect  it,  unless  we  abandon  the  first  position  of 
non-intervention  by  Congress. 

But  it  seems  exceedingly  strange  to  me,  that  the  people  of  the 
South  should,  at  this  late  day,  begin  to  find  fault  with  this  north 
ern  construction,  as  it  is  termed — especially  since  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott.  In  this  connec 
tion,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  I  have  read  with  deep  in 
terest  the  debates  of  the  Charleston  convention,  and  particularly 
the  able,  logical,  and  eloquent  speech  of  the  Hon.  Wm.  L.  Yaiicey, 
of  Alabama.  It  was,  decidedly,  the  strongest  argument  I  have 
seen  on  his  side  of  the  question.  But  its  greatest  power  was 
shown  in  its  complete  answer  to  itself.  Never  did  a  man,  with 
greater  clearness,  demonstrate  that  "squatter  sovereignty,"  the 
bug-bear  of  the  day,  is  not  in  the  Kansas  bill,  all  that  has  been 
said  to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  This,  he  put  beyond  the 
power  of  refutation.  But  he  stopped  not  there — he  went  on,  and 
by  reference  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  alluded  to,  he 
showed,  conclusively,  in  a  most  pointed  and  thrilling  climax,  that 
this  most  frightful  doctrine  could  not,  by  possibility,  be  in  it,  or 
in  any  other  territorial  bill — that  it  is  a  constitutional  impossi 
bility.  With  the  same  master  hand  he  showed  that  the  doctrine 
of  "  squatter  sovereignty"  is  not  in  the  Cincinnati  platform ;  then, 
why  should  we  of  the  South  now  complain  of  non-intervention, 
or  ask  a  change  of  platform  ? 

What  else  have  we  to  do  but  to  insist  upon  our  allies  standing 
to  their  agreement  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  much  more  natural 
to  look  for  flinching  on  their  side  than  on  ours  ?  Why  should 
we  desire  or  want  any  other  platform  of  principles  than  that 
adopted  at  Cincinnati  ?  If  those  who  stood  with  us  on  it,  in  the 
contest  of  1856,  are  willing  still  to  stand  on  it,  why  should  we 
not  be  equally  willing  ?  For  my  life  I  cannot  see,  unless  we  are 
determined  to  have  a  quarrel  with  the  North  anyhow  on  general 
account.  If  so,  in  behalf  of  common  sense,  let  us  put  it  upon 
more  tenable  ground  !  These  are  abundant.  For  our  own  char 
acter's  sake,  let  us  make  it  upon  the  aggressive  acts  of  our 
enemies,  rather  than  any  supposed  short-comings  of  our  friends, 
who  have  stood  by  us  so  steadfastly  in  so  many  constitutional 
struggles.  In  the  name  of  patriotism  and  honor,  let  us  not  make 
it  upon  a  point  which  may  so  directly  subject  us  to  the  charge  of 
breach  of  plighted  faith.  Whatever  may  befal  us,  let  us  ever  be 
found,  by  friend  or  foe,  as  good  as  our  word.  These  are  my 
views,  frankly  and  earnestly  given. 

The  great  question  then,  is,  shall  we  stand  by  our  principles,  or 
shall  we,  cutting  loose  from  our  moorings,  where  we  have  been 


LETTEK    ON"   THE    CHARLESTON   RUPTURE.  667 

safely  anchored  so  many  years,  launch  out  again  into  unknown 
soas,  upon  new  and  perilous  adventures,  under  the  guide  and  pilot 
age  of  those  who  prove  themselves  to  have  no  more  fixedness  of 
purpose  or  stability  as  to  objects  or  policy  than  the  shifting 
winds  by  which  we  shall  be  driven  ?  Let  this  question  be  decided 
by  the  convention,  and  decided  with  that  wisdom,  coolness,  and 
forecast  which  become  statesmen  and  patriots.  As  for  myself,  I 
can  say,  whatever  may  be  the  course  of  future  events,  niy  judg 
ment  in  this  crisis  is,  that  we  should  stand  by  our  principles 
"  through  woe  "  as  well  as  "  through  weal,  "and  maintain  them  in 
good  faith,  now  and  alwaj^s,  if  need  be,  until  they,  we,  and  the 
republic,  perish  together  in  a  common  ruin.  I  see  no  injury 
that  can  possibly  arise  to  us  from  them — not  even  if  the  constitu 
tional  impossibility  of  their  containing  "squatter  sovereignty"  did 
not  exist,  as  has  been  conclusively  demonstrated.  For,  if  it  did 
exist  in  them,  and  were  all  that  its  most  ardent  advocates  claim 
for  it,  no  serious  practical  danger  to  us  could  result  from  it. 

Even  according  to  that  doctrine,  we  have  the  unrestricted  right 
of  expansion  to  the  extent  of  population.  It  is  admitted  that 
slavery  can,  and  will,  go,  under  its  operation,  wherever  the  peo 
ple  want  it.  Squatters  carried  it  to  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Mis 
souri,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Arkansas,  without  any  law  to  pro 
tect  it,  and  to  Texas  against  a  law  prohibiting  it,  and  they  will  carry 
it  under  this  doctrine  to  all  countries  where  climate,  soil,  produc 
tion,  and  population  will  allow.  These  are  the  natural  laws  that 
will  regulate  it  under  non-intervention,  according  to  that  construc 
tion  ;  and  no  act  of  Congress  can  carry  it  into  any  territory  against 
these  laws,  any  more  than  it  could  make  the  rivers  run  to  the  moun 
tains,  instead  of  the  sea.  If  we  have  not  enough  of  the  right 
sort  of  population  to  compete  longer  with  the  North  in  the  colo 
nization  of  new  territories  and  States,  this  deficiency  can  never 
be  supplied  by  any  such  act  of  Congress  as  that  now' asked  for. 
The  attempt  would  be  as  vain  as  that  of  Xerxes  to  control  the 
waters  of  the  Hellespont  by  whipping  them  in  his  rage. 

The  times,  as  you  intimate,  do,  indeed,  portend  evil.  But  I  have 
no  fears  for  the  institution  of  slavery,  either  in  the  Union  or  out 
of  it;  if  our  people  are  but  true  to  themselves — true,  stable  and 
loyal  to  fixed  principles  and  settled  policy ;  and  if  they  are  not 
thus  true,  I  have  little  hope  of  any  thing  good,  whether  the  pre 
sent  Union  last  or  a  new  one  be  formed.  There  is,  in  my  judg 
ment,  nothing  to  fear  from  the  "irrepressible  conflict,"  of 
which  we  hear  so  much.  Slavery  rests  upon  great  truths,  which  can 
never  be  successfully  assailed  by  reason  or  argument.  It  has 
grown  stronger  in  the  minds  of  men  the  more  it  has  been  dis 
cussed,  and  it  will  still  grow  stronger  as  the  discussion  proceeds 
and  time  rolls  on.  Truth  is  omnipotent,  and  must  prevail.  We 
have  only  to  maintain  the  truth  with  firmness,  and  wield  it  aright. 
Our  system  rests  upon  an  impregnable  basis,  that  can  and  will 
defy  all  assaults  from  without.  My  greatest  apprehension  is  from 


668  LETTER   TO    DR.   Z.   P.    LANDRUM. 

causes  within — there  lies  the  greatest  danger.  We  have  grown 
luxuriant  in  the  exuberance  of  our  well  being  and  unparalleled 
prosperitjr.  There  is  a  tendency  everywhere,  not  only  at  the  North, 
but  at  the  South,  to  strife,  dissension,  disorder,  and  anarchy.  It  is 
against  this  tendency  that  the  sober-minded  and  reflecting  men 
eveiy where  should  now  be  called  upon  to  guard. 

My  opinion,  then,  is,  that  delegates  ought  to  be  sent  to  the 
adjourned  convention  at  Baltimore.  The  demand  made  at  Charles 
ton  by  the  seceders  ought  not  to  be  insisted  upon.  Harmony 
being  restored  on  this  point,  a  nomination  can  doubtless  be  made 
of  some  man  whom  the  party,  everywhere,  can  support,  with  the 
same  zeal,  and  the  same  ardor  with  which  they  entered  and  waged 
the  contest  in  1856,  when  the  same  principles  were  involved. 

If.  in  this,  there  be  a  failure,  let  the  responsibility  not  rest  upon 
us.  Let  our  hands  be  clear  of  all  blame.  Let  there  be  no  cause 
for  casting  censure  at  our  door.  If,  in  the  end,  the  great  na 
tional  democratic  party — the  strong  ligament,  which  has  so  long 
bound  and  held  the  Union  together — shaped  its  policy  and  con 
trolled  its  destinies — and  to  which  we  have  so  often  looked  with 
a  hope  that  seldom  failed,  as  the  only  party  North  on  which  to 
rel}r,  in  the  most  trying  hours  when  constitutional  rights  were 
in  peril,  let  it  not  be  said  to  us,  in  the  midst  of  the  disasters  that 
may  ensue,  "you  did  it!"  In  any  and  every  event,  let  not  the 
reproach  of  Punic  faith  rest  upon  our  name.  If  everything  else  has 
to  go  down,  let  our  untarnished  honor,  at  least,  survive  the  wreck. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


LETTER    TO    DR.    Z.    P.    LANDRUM,    OF    LEXINGTON, 
GEORGIA,  JULY  1st  1860. 

CRAW  FORD  VILLE,  GEO.,  JULY  1,  1860.    . 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  the  26th  ultimo  was  duly  received,  and 
I  now  return  you  an  answer  by  the  earliest  mail  that  will  bear  it. 
But  I  confess  my  utter  inability  to  give  you  any  definite  or  satis 
factory  response  to  your  several  inquiries.  The  condition  of 
public  affairs  in  my  judgment  is  truly  deplorable,  and  I  see  but 
little  prospect  of  it  being  bettered  by  any  effort  of  patriotism  on 
my  part.  Your  professional  practice  has  doubtless  presented  you 
with  many  cases  where  the  symptoms  indicated  a  malignit}^  of 
disease  beyond  the  power  of  medical  skill.  Such  you  will  excuse 
me  in  sajdng  are  the  symptoms  of  our  public  disorders,  in  my 
judgment,  at  this  time.  I  see  no  remedy,  can  make  no  prescrip 
tion — and  can  suggest  nothing.  The  "  vis  medicatrix  naturse," 


LETTER    TO    DR.    Z.   P.    LANDRUM.  669 

is  the  only  hope,  and  when  this  is  the 'only  hope,  the  best  course 
is  to  leave  the  patient  quietly  to  himself. 

It  is  useless  to  discuss  questions  relating  to  the  origin  of  this 
state  of  things,  or  how  the  evils  that  are  upon  us,  or  the  worse 
ones  ahead  now  threatening,  could  have  been  avoided.  The 
times  seem  to  be  sadly  out  of  joint. 

In  reply  to  what  you  say  of  ray  power,  and  that  patriotism 
and  statesmanship  must  "  save  us,  else  we  perish,"  I  can  only 
say,  with  an  oppressed  heart,  that  there  are  periods  in  every 
nation's  history,  when  passions  get  the  better  of  reason,  when  no 
human  power  can  avail  any  thing,  when  patriotism  and  states 
manship  are  alike  submerged  under  the  irresistible  wave.  At  such 
times  no  power  short  of  that  which  said  to  the  troubled  waters 
of  Galilee's  sea,  "  peace  be  still,"  can  allay  the  storm.  This  is  that 
unseen,  but  all  prevailing,  and  all  controlling  power  of  Providence, 
which  shapes  the  fortunes  of  men,  and  guides  the  destiny  of  States. 
What  is  to  be  the  future  of  this  country,  I  cannot  say.  I  cannot 
even  venture  a  conjecture.  All  I  can  do  is  to  indulge  a  hope, 
strong  or  weak,  as  it  may  be,  that  all  may  yet  be  well.  How  this 
is  to  be,  I  do  not  see ;  it  was  in  prospects  of  the  events  we  now 
have  upon  us,  "  the  shadows"  of  which  I  saw  in  advance  of 
their  approach,  with  the  full  conviction  and  consciousness  that 
/  could  do  nothing  to  avert  them,  that  caused  me  to  retire  from 
that  position  of  responsibility  I  had  so  long  held,  and  in  which  I 
felt  satisfied  I  could  no  longer  be  useful. 

The  real  evils  of  the  times  the  people  do  not  understand.  It 
springs  from  no  defect  in  their  government,  from  no  "irrepressible 
conflict"  of  interest  between  the  two  great  sections  of  the  Union, 
from  no  danger  to  the  rights,  interest,  honor,  or  safety  of 
either,  but  from  the  want  of  true  patriotism,  on  the  part  of  our 
public  men  in  all  sections ;  from  the  want  of  devotion  to  the 
country,  for  the  country's  sake  ;  from  a  want  of  loyalty  to  princi 
ple  ;  nay,  more,  directly  from  the  ambition  of  aspirants  for  place 
and  power.  This  begets  personal  strife,  prompted  by  jealousy 
and  envy  and  hate.  These  are  amongst  the  strongest,  as  well  as 
the  worst  passions  of  human  nature.  They  are  not  confined  to 
humanity ;  even  in  heaven  (it  is  said)  they  once  exhibited  their 
power  and  fury.  If  there  they  made  devils  of  angels,  what  may 
we  not  expect  them  to  make  of  men  on  earth  ?  The  good,  the 
virtuous,  and  the  wise,  may  look  on  and  lament.  Sometimes 
wise  counsels  may  arrest  and  prevent  most  mischievous  conse 
quences,  at  others  they  are  as  impotent  as  chaff  to  stay  the  force 
of  a  storm.  What  influence  had  La  Fayette's  sage  admoni 
tions  on  the  passions  of  the  frenzied  populace  of  France,  aroused 
and  led  on  by  demagogues  ?  I  need  not  indulge,  however, 
any  longer  in  this  strain. 

To  come  to  particulars.  I  assure  you  I  am  pained  and  grieved 
at  what  was  done  at  Baltimore.  The  Charleston  rupture  was 
bad  enough,  but  that  at  Baltimore  was  much  worse.  What  the 


670  LETTER   TO    DR.    Z.    P.   LANDRUM. 

friends  of  Mr.  Douglas  meant  by  pressing  his  nomination  in  the 
face  of  the  secession  of  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  Virginia,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  States,  I  cannot  imagine.  As  I  view  the  field, 
he  has  no  probable  chance  of  election.  Why  they  should  put  him 
up  to  be  beaten  is  strange  to  me.  I  cannot  understand  it.  They 
certainly  have  not  as  much  regard  for  his  noble  spirit,  great  talents, 
and  merits  as  I  have.  Madness  and  folly  seem  to  have  ruled 
the  hour.  The  only  use  or  public  benefit  his  running  can  be,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  for  him  to  carry  enough  northern  electoral  votes  to 
defeat  Mr.  Lincoln  before  the  people,  and  to  throw  the  election 
into  the  House,  where  his  party  rival,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  may  make 
him  a  stepping-stone  in  his  elevation  to  power  and  place.  In  this 
way  he  may  possibly,  by  his  back  and  'shoulders,  enable  Mr. 
Breckinridge  to  succeed  in  his  election,  and  benefit  the  country 
by  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  But  what  honor  this  will  be  to 
Mr.  Douglas  I  think  it  would  be  difficult  for  his  friends  to 
show.  If  this  position  had  been  necessary  for  any  one,  I  would 
have  assigned  it  to  some  other — some  one  who  could,  and  would 
have  rendered  the  country  great  public  service,  and  at  the  same 
time  might  have  been  gaining  and  not  losing  public  reputation 
himself.  Again,  his  friends,  it  seems  to  me,  must  have  known 
that  his  nomination,  made  under  the  circumstances  that  it  was, 
could  not  have  the  power  of  keeping  the  national  organization 
together.  It  was  virtually  a  rupture  of  it.  The  usages  of  the 
party  and  its  constitution,  it  will  be  said,  (however,  the  facts 
may  be,)  were  violated  in  putting  him  forth  as  its  nominee,  with 
out  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the  electoral  votes.  This 
will  effectually  produce  general  demoralization. 

The  consequence  is,  we  are  and  shall  be,  during  the  whole  can 
vass,  entirely  at  sea.  No  one  will  be  looked  to  as  the  regular 
appointed  standard-bearer  of  the  flag  of  the  national  organiza 
tion.  The  rupture  is  complete,  and  may  be  final.  How  that  will 
be  the  future  must  determine.  This  election,  at  best,  can  but  be  a 
scrub  race  between  the  democratic  candidates.  The  national  demo 
cratic  party  is  in  the  position  of  the  old  republican  party  in  1824. 
The  same  fate  may  be  in  reserve  for  it.  That  never  was  again  re 
organized,  though  another  national  organization  did  spring  up 
out  of  the  fragments  and  dissolving  elements  of  old  organizations, 
which  was  sufficient  under  Providence  to  save  our  institutions ; 
and  so  it  may  be  again, 

It  is  consoling  to  the  patriot  at  least  to  indulge  in  the  hope 
that  such  may  be  the  case.  But  that  the  South  will  ever  get  an 
act  of  Congress  protecting  slave  property  in  the  territories,  I 
have  no  idea.  That  those  who  now  insist  upon  such  an  article 
in  a  national  party  creed  ever  expect  to  see  such  an  act  passed,  I 
have  no  idea.  For  many  of  them  say  that  they  would  not  vote 
for  such  a  law.  And  that  such  a  law  would  never  be  of  the  least 
advantage  to  the  South,  I  am  well  satisfied.  Hence,  I  was,  and 
am  clear  in  my  conviction  that  it  was  not  only  not  patriotic,  but 


LETTEK    TO    DR.    Z.   P.   LAN  DRUM.  671 

exceedingly  unwise  and  mischievous  to  insist  upon  such  an  inter 
polation  on  the  old  national  party  platform,  and  particularly  at  this 
juncture.  But  I  will  not  confine  my  remarks  to  this  juncture  ;  for 
I  verily  believe  that  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
the  territories,  is  the  proper  and  safe  doctrine  at  all  times.  Had 
the  party  at  this  time  continued  to  stand  on  it  with  Mr.  Douglas, 
they  would  have  carried  the  country  by  an  overwhelming  majority, 
and  would  have  annihilated  the  "  Black  republican  organization," 
as  it  is  called,  for  all  time  to  come.  This  is  my  opinion.  As 
matters  now  stand,  this  great  result  is  put  almost  upon  the 
chances  of  the  turning  of  a  die.  If  Douglas  can  carry  enough 
northern  States  to  defeat  Lincoln's  election  in  the  electoral 
colleges,  the  contest  will  then  come  up  in  the  House ;  when 
if  the  South  unite  with  California  and  Oregon,  Lincoln  may  be 
defeated. 

But  the  seat  of  the  democratic  member  from  Oregon  [Mr.  STOUT] 
is  now  contested,  and  I  have  no  doubt  a  majority  in  the  present 
House  will  vote  him  out,  in  case  the  election  for  President  shall  go 
before  that  body.  Then  there  is  great  danger  that  a  strife  will 
arise  between  the  friends  of  Bell  and  Breckinridge,  in  case  they 
both  be  on  the  list  of  the  three  highest  voted  for  by  the  colleges. 
In  that  event,  there  will  be  no  hope  but  in  staving  off  the  election 
until  the  4th  of  March,  when  the  Senate  will  have  to  make  the 
choice  under  the  constitution.  But  in  all  these  chances,  in  view 
of  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  bad  men,  aiming  at  rule  and 
power,  who  does  not  see  in  advance  the  imminent  danger  at 
every  turn,  of  some  outbreak  that  may  lead  to  revolution  ?  Have 
we  not  fallen  upon  evil  times,  when  so  much  has  been  hazarded 
to  accomplish  no  object  higher  or  worthier  than  the  gratification 
of  personal  envy,  hate,  revenge,  and  ambition  ?  The  prospect  is 
gloomy  enough,  but,  my  dear  sir,  I  do  not  despair  of  the  Republic ; 
though  I  do  not  at  this  time  see  in  what  way  any  thing  I  can  do 
or  say  would  be  of  the  least  benefit,  yet  I  am  not  without  hope 
that  deliverance  in  some  way  is  in  store  for  us.  As  to  whether 
a  Douglas  ticket  should  be  run  in  Georgia,  I  can  give  no  advice 
either  for  or  against  it.  What  those  southern  States — Alabama 
and  Louisiana — which  voted  for  Mr.  Douglas  at  Baltimore,  as  they 
did,  meant  by  their  course,  or  what  they  expected  to  accomplish 
by  it,  I  do  not  know.  I  have  received  no  explanations.  What 
Governor  Johnson  expects  to  accomplish,  I  do  not  know.  I 
have  heard  nothing  from  any  of  them.  I  see  the  editor  of  the 
Constitutionalist  speaks  as  ii'  he  thinks  the  South  will  go  for 
Douglas.  To  me,  this  seems  little  short  of  utter  dementation. 
Still  I  may  be  mistaken.  I  only  speak  to  you  my  individual 
opinions,  formed  from  observations  such  as  I  can  make  in  my 
quiet  retreat,  without  mingling  at  all  with  the  outside  world, 
except  through  the  medium  of  the  public  press.  Had  Douglas 
been  nominated  at  Charleston  (even  after  the  secession  took  place), 
lie  would  have  carried  the  South  against  a  Richmond  nomination. 


672  LETTER   TO    DR.    Z.    P.    LANDRUM. 

But  at  present  it  is  impossible.  The  Baltimore  Convention,  instead 
of  stopping  the  break  in  the  levee,  only  made  it  deeper  and  wider.  It 
is  now,  in  my  judgment,  entirely  beyond  control.  Nothing  but  a  sub 
sidence  of  the  waters  will  ever  arrest  it.  I  think,  moreover,  that  the 
declination  of  Fitzpatrick,  and  the  general  enthusiasm  for  Breck- 
inridge  and  Lane  in  the  South,  will  greatly  damage  Douglas  in 
the  North,  if  it  does  not  entirely  break  him  down  there.  As  the 
prospect  of  his  election  diminishes,  as  it  will  very  soon,  even 
with  those  who  were  foolish  enough  to  put  him  up  as  they  did — 
thousands  will  abandon  him  to  get  on  the  winning  side.  Some 
from  spite,  and  some  from  personal  motives,  so  that  in  the  end  I 
should  not  be  greatty  surprised  to  see  Lincoln  elected  by  the 
people.  In  this  state  of  things,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am 
satisfied  that  the  best  course  I  can  take  is,  to  leave  the  whole 
matter  with  those  who  have  undertaken  the  management  of  the 
crisis.  Should  it  turn  out  well,  no  one  will  be  more  rejoiced  than 
myself.  Should  it  turn  out  badly,  while  I  shall  feel  relieved  of 
all  personal  responsibility — should  I  be  in  life — I  shall  endeavor 
to  do  whatever  the  dictates  of  patriotism  ma}r  point  out,  whenever 
an  occasion  shall  arise,  when  I  see  any  prospect  for  doing  good. 
At  this  time,  I  repeat,  I  see  none.  I  expect,  therefore,  in  this 
contest,  to  be  perfectly  silent.  I  see  no  good  to  be  accomplished 
by  any  word  that  I  can  say.  The  popular  fever  must  run  its 
course.  I  do  not  wish  any  one  to  be  influenced  by  my  views, 
one  way  or  the  other.  Every  one  should  act  from  the  dictates 
of  his  own  judgment.  If  the  "worst  comes,"  and  we  shall  be 
precipitated  into  disunion,  even  by  what  I  deem  unwise  counsels, 
which  is  not  at  all  improbable,  I  shall  yield  to  that  misfortune  as 
to  all  others.  My  destiny  is  with  the  South  ;  whatever  awaits 
her  people,  awaits  me,  so  long  as  I  live.  Whatever  errors  her 
people  or  her  rulers  commit  .  in  controlling  the  common  des 
tiny  of  all  of  us,  I  shall  endeavor  to  bear  my  share  of  the  con 
sequences  of  them  with  that  patriotism  which  prompts  a  loyal 
heart  to  go  for  his  country,  right  or  wrong.  At  present,  my 
patriotism  embraces  the  whole  country,  North  and  South,  and  I 
have  spent  the  best  of  my  days  in  promoting  the  union,  harmony, 
peace,  rights,  interests,  and  happiness  of  the  whole.  But  if  for 
any  cause  a  division  takes  place,  then  Georgia  will  be  my  coun 
try,  her  people  will  be  my  people,  and  their  cause  will  be  my 
cause.  I  do  trust  that  this  division  will  not  take  place.  I  see 
no  necessity  for  it.  Still  it  may  come.  And  if  it  does,  my  judg 
ment  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  thing,  or  the  propriety  of  the 
course  of  our  public  men,  that  may  induce  it  and  hasten  it,  will 
not  influence  my  action  when  the  great  fact  is  upon  us. 

Excuse  this  long  letter.  It  is  written,  as  you  see  from  its  date, 
on  Sunday.  I  give  it  to  you  as  a  sort  of  pious  offering,  not  al 
together  unsuited  to  the  sacredness  of  the  day.  There  are  occa 
sions  when  attention  to  bodity  suffering  of  ourselves  or  our 
friends,  as  well  as  personal  cares,  are  not  thought  to  be  out  of 


LETTER   TO    DR.    Z.    P.    LAXDRUM.  673 

place  on  this  day.  Even  Christ,  after  ministering  in  this  way  on 
that  day,  asked  those  about  him,  "which  of  you  shall  have  an 
ass,  or  an  ox  fall  into  a  pit,  and  will  not  straightway  pull  him 
out  on  the  Sabbath  day."  The  illustration  is  good  to  the  extent 
that  good  may  be  performed  on  Sunda}^.  And  with  a  conscious 
ness  that  what  I  have  said  or  written  has  been  prompted  by  no 
motive,  but  the  public  good,  which  concerns  us  all  so  deeply,  I 
have  no  further  apology  to  offer  you  for  this  deed  on  the  Sabbath, 
though  I  make  no  attempt  to  get  the  country  out  of  its  difficul 
ties,  for  I  see  no  way  to  do  it. 

In  reply  to  your  inquiries  after  my  health,  I  have  to  say  that 
it  is  very  feeble  indeed.  I  am  bearly  able  to  be  up.  I  have  quit 
all  professional  labors.  I  suffer  from  extreme  debility,  accompa 
nied  with  vertigo.  The  cause  or  nature  of  the  malady  I  do  not 
understand.  When  I  was  at  Athens,  attending  the  Supreme 
Court,  I  consulted  Dr*.  Moore,  who  thought  it  was  brought  on  bv 
exposure  to  the  sun.  I  had  been  very  much  thus  exposed  on  my 
farm,  during  the  hot  days  in  May,  just  before  the  first  attack.  I 
am  on  no  treatment  or  regime,  except  rest  and  quiet. 

To  your  other  inquiiy  about  our  national  flag,  all  I  can  say  is, 
that  the  designer  of  the  present  flag  was  Captain  Reid,  of  the 
privateer  brig,  General  Armstrong,  in  the  war  with  England,  in 
1812.  The  dates  and  particulars  I  cannot  give,  or  wherein  the 
device  of  the  present  flag  differs  from  the  old  one.  The  full  history 
of  the  stars  and  stripes  I  expect  would  be  entertaining  if  not  use 
ful.  The  stars,  as  a  matter  of  course,  represent  States.  The  origin 
of  the  stripes,  I  think,  if  searched  out  would  be  found  to  be  a 
little  curious.  All  I  know  upon  that  point  is,  that  on  the  4th  day 
of  July,  1Y76,  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  carried, 
a  committee  was  appointed  by  Congress,  consisting  of  Mr.  Jef 
ferson,  Dr.  Franklin,  and  John  Adams  to  prepare  a  device  for  a 
seal  of  the  United  States.  Each  member  of  the  committee  pre 
pared  a  device,  and  then  they  combined  something  of  the  ideas 
of  each  in  one  they  reported.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  to  combine 
their  ideas.  The  seal  he  thus  reported  had  on  one  side  of  it  the 
Goddess  of  Liberty  and  the  Goddess  of  Justice,  supporting  a 
shield  with  six  quarterings,  denoting  the  six  countries  from 
which  the  colonies  had  mainly  been  peopled,  to  wit :  England, 
Scotland,  Ireland,  France,  Germany,  and  Holland.  The  motto 
on  this  seal  was  "  E pluribus  unum."  This  seal,  as  reported,  or 
the  device  in  full  as  reported,  was  never  adopted.  .But  in  it  we 
see  the  emblems  in  part,  which  are  still  preserved  in  the  flag. 

The  stripes  or  lines,  which  on  Mr.  Jefferson's  original  plan 
were  to  designate  the  six  quarterings  of  the  shield,  as  signs  of  the 
six  countries  from  which  our  ancestors  came,  are  now,  I  believe, 
considered  as  representations  of  the  old  thirteen  States,  and  with 
most  persons  the  idea  of  a  shield  is  lost  sight  of.  You  perceive 
that  by  drawing  six  lines  or  stripes  on  a  shield  figure  it  will 
leave  seven  spaces  of  the  original  color,  and  of  course  give 
43 


674  SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN  AUGUSTA. 

thirteen  apparent  stripes ;  hence  the  idea  of  their  being  all 
intended  to  represent  the  old  thirteen  States.  My  opinion  is,  that 
this  was  the  origin  of  the  stripes.  Mr.  Jefferson's  quartered 
shield  for  a  seal  device  was  seized  upon  as  a  national  emblem  that 
was  put  upon  the  flag.  We  now  have  the  stars  as  well  as  the  stripes. 
When  each  of  these  were  adopted  I  cannot  say ;  but  the  flag,  as 
ii  now  is,  was  designed  by  Captain  Reid,  as  I  tell  you,  and 
adopted  by  Congress.  The  first  one  with  his  device,  which  Con 
gress  adopted,  was  put  over  the  Capitol.  It  was  made  by  the 
wife  and  daughters  of  Captain  Reid. 

Please  remember  me  to  Miss  Grattan  and  to  Mrs.  Gilmer — to 
both  give  my  kind  regards.  And  though  this  letter  is  written 
entirely  and  exclusively  for  yourself,  and  not  for  the  public,  in 
any  sense  of  the  word,  }ret  I  have  no  objection  to  your  reading  it 
to  Mrs.  Gilmer  if  you  think  proper.  In  it  she  will  but  hear 
repeated  several  thoughts  and  opinions*  she  heard  from  me 
last  fall  on  a  memorable  occasion.  It  was  the  last  night  Mr.  Gilmer 
ever  sat  up  and  talked  with  his  friends,  a  conversation  I  shall 
never  forget,  for  the  strong  faith  and  confidence  he  then  ex 
pressed,  in  the  ultimate  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people  to 
arrest  the  evil  tendencies  of  the  times,  greatly  strengthened  my 
own  hopes,  weaker  then  than  now.  What  has  occurred  since  has 
not  disappointed  me  at  all.  It  has  not  even  surprised  me.  I 
was  expecting  it,  and  am  now  expecting  a  much  worse .  state  of 
things  before  any  wholesome  reaction  takes  place,  if  it  ever  does. 

I  must  repeat  to  you  that  what  I  have  said  is  not  for  public 
use  in  any  sense.  I  do  not  wish  your  own  action  to  be  governed 
in  the  least  by  that  line  which  I  think  proper  to  take  myself.  Do 
as  you  think  best.  Present  my  kind  regards  to  Mrs.  Landrum, 
and  accept  for  both  of  you  my  best  wishes  for  all  the  happiness 
this  world  can  bestow,  as  well  as  that  in  a  life  to  come,  which  is 
in  reserve  for  the  virtuous  and  the  good. 

Yours  truly, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 
DR.  Z.  P.  LANDRUM,  LEXINGTON,  GA. 


SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  CITY  HALL  PARK, 
AUGUSTA,  GEORGIA. 

SATURDAY  EVENING,  SEPTEMBER  1,  1860. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  : — I  appear  before  you  in  obedience  to  a  call 
made  on  me  by  those  whose  call  could  not  be  refused.  The 
sacrifice  of  personal  feelings  or  wishes,  on  such  occasions,  is  not 
to  be  taken  into  the  account.  If  it  were,  I  assure  you  I  should 
not  be  here  I  had  hoped  never  again  to  be  drawn  into  the  active 
struggles,  the  strifes,  and  excitements  of  politics.  The  address 
I  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  of  last  year,  near  this  spot,  on  taking 


SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA.  675 

leave  of  you,  and  this  district,  as  representative  in  Congress,  I 
intended  to  be  the  last  speech  of  the  kind  I  should  ever  make. 
I  trusted  that  in  no  event,  or  under  any  circumstances,  should  I 
ever  be  called  on  again  to  mingle  in  public  affairs.  All  the  ques 
tions  with  which  I  had  been  connected  in  the  public  councils 
having  been  settled  upon  terms  satisfactory  to  us — upon  terms 
thought  to  be  just  and  honorable  to  all  sections  of  the  Union — it 
was  but  natural  to  look  upon  that  settlement  as  permanent,  and 
to  indulge  the  hope  of  a  happy  and  prosperous  future  for  the 
country.  But  how  illusory  are  all  our  hopes !  How  changed  the 
prospect  before  us  now  from  what  it  was  twelve  months  ago  ! 
Then  every  thing  was  encouraging  to  the  heart  of  the  patriot — 
would  that  I  could  say  the  same  now.  Those  agitating  questions, 
then  thought  to  be  settled,  have  been  opened  up  afresh,  and  all 
that  was  done  in  their  settlement  is  attempted  to  be  undone.  You 
ask  me  what  I  think  oi  the  present  state  of  the  country  ?  I  told 
you,  in  the  speech  alluded  to,  that  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  coun 
try,  in  my  judgment,  depended  upon  an  adherence  to  the  principles 
of  the  settlement  of  those  questions  then  made.  I  tell  you  the  same 
now.  I  tell  you  candidly  and  frankly  that  the  signs  of  the  times,  as 
I  read  them,  portend  evils  of  the  gravest  magnitude.  There  is  an 
attempt  made  to  depart  from  the  principles  of  that  settlement. 

At  this  time,  and  for  some  months  past,  the  tendencies  have 
been  decidedly  toward  national  disruption,  and  general  anarchy. 
This  conviction  is  beginning  to  force  itself  upon  the  minds  of 
all.  Can  these  tendencies  be  checked  ?  Can  the  threatened  dis- 
aftters  be  avoided  or  prevented  ?  If  so,  how,  and  in  what  way  ? 
What  course  should  the  patriot,  looking  only  to  the  public  good, 
public  peace,  welfare,  and  safety,  take  in  the  complicated  contest 
before  us  ?  These  are  questions  which  now  crowd  upon  our  consid 
eration.  On  them  I  propose  to  address  JTOU  to-night.  They 
present  a  wide  field  for  thought  and  reflection — abounding  in  sub 
jects  of  deepest  interest  and  gravest  import.  I  can  only  touch 
upon  a  few  of  them.  My  physical  strength  will  not  allow  me  to 
attempt  more,  if,  indeed,  it  will  sustain  me  in  the  limited  view  I 
have  marked  out  for  myself.  I  assume,  in  the  outset,  that  the 
government,  as  it  exists,  is  worth  preserving ;  nay,  more,  with 
all  its  errors  and  defects,  with  all  its  corruptions  in  administra 
tion,  and  short-comings  of  its  officers,  it  is  the  best  government 
on  earth,  and  ought  to  be  sustained,  if  it  can  be,  on  the  principles 
upon  which  it  was  founded. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  duty  of  democrats  in  the  approaching 
Presidential  election  ;  for  to  that  party  I  specially  address  myself. 
The  choice  of  Chief  Magistrate  is  the  now  pressing  and  absorb 
ing  issue.  Greater  and  more  momentous  issues  may  be  behind  ; 
but  I  wish  not  to  lift  the  curtain  of  the  future,  it  is  with  the  pres 
ent  we  now  deal.  For  whom  should  democrats  vote.  There 
are  two  tickets  in  the  field  claiming  to  be  democratic ;  which  one 
is  entitled  to  and  should  receive  the  votes  of  the  democrats  ?  To 
this  I  answer,  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  national  ticket,  bearing 


676  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  AUGUSTA. 

the  names  of  Douglas  and  Johnson,  is  the  one  entitled  to  demo 
cratic  support. 

The  nominees  on  this  ticket  are  the  representatives  of  the  party, 
put  forth  according  to  the  usages  of  the  party,  and  are  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  long-established  principles  of  the  party.  Nay, 
more,  they  are  the  representatives  of  the  only  principles  upon 
which,  in  my  judgment,  the  Union  of  the  States,  and  the  rights 
of  all  sections,  can  be  maintained.  For  this  reason  I  would  urge 
this  ticket,  not  only  upon  all  democrats,  but  upon  all  well-wishers 
of  their  country,  whether  called  democrats,  whigs,  or  Americans. 
Allow  me  briefly  to  notice  some  of  the  prominent  objections 
urged  against  this  ticket  by  the  partisans  and  friends  of 
the  other  ticket  claiming  to  be  the  true  democratic  party. 

These  relate  to  the  manner  of  the  nomination,  the  principles  of 
the  platform,  and  especially  to  certain  opinions  of  Mr.  Douglas, 
whose  name  heads  the  ticket. 

First,  as  to  the  manner  of  the  nomination.  It  is  said  he  failed  to 
get  two  thirds  of  the  votes  in  the  convention — that  by  democratic 
usage  from  1832  down,  no  candidate  could  be  nominated  without 
a  two-third  vote. 

I  would  not  notice  this  point,  if  so  much  stress  had  not  been  put 
upon  it  by  those  who  advocate  the  other  ticket.  Not  only  in  the 
press,  but  in  the  speeches  of  leading  men,  and  in  the  address  to  the 
public,  put  forth  by  the  seceders  convention's  Executive  Commit 
tee,  this  point  is  made  prominent,  and  urged  as  one  of  the  main  rea 
sons  why  democrats  should  feel  under  no  party  obligation  to 
support  the  ticket  of  the  regularly  constituted  democratic  conven 
tion.  In  my  judgment,  Mr.  Douglas  did  receive  two  thirds  of  the 
votes  of  the  convention,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  party,  and 
according  to  the  proper  construction  of  what  is  known  as  the  two 
third  rule. 

It  is  immaterial  to  me  whethei  he  received  the  nomination  ac 
cording  to  the  interpretation  or  construction  of  that  rule  at 
Charleston  or  not.  I  mean  the  construction  that  the  nominees 
should  receive  two  thirds  of  all  the  electoral  votes.  That  con 
struction  was  wrong.  It  was  an  interpolation.  It  was  inconsist 
ent  with  the  clear  meaning — the  letter,  as  well  as  the  spirit — of 
the  rule.  The  letter  of  the  rule  in  most,  if  not  all  the  conventions 
from  1832,  running  through  1836,  1840,  1844,  1848,  1852,  and  1856, 
was  that  the  nominees  should  receive  two  thirds  of  all  the  votes 
cast  or  given  in  the  convention.  It  is  immaterial  whether,  in  point 
of  fact,  in  all  other  conventions,  the  nominees  did  actually  receive 
two  thirds  of  the  entire  electoral  vote  or  not — there  never  was 
before  such  a  secession  as  was  at  Charleston  and  Baltimore ;  the 
question  is  what  is  the  right  construction  of  the  rule  requiring 
two  thirds  of  the  votes  of  the  convention  to  make  a  nomination, 
and  when  will  its  requisition  be  complied  with  ?  This  principle  of 
a  two-third  vote  is  well  understood  in  the  parliamentary  law  of 
the  country  It  is  fixed  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 


SPEECH   DELIVERED  IN  AUGUSTA.  677 

and  in  the  constitution  of  our  own  State,  perhaps  of  most  of  the 
States  of  the  Union.  It  is  a  principle  often  carried  into  practi 
cal  operation  in  Congress,  and  in  our  State  Legislatures.  For 
instance,  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  article  first, 
section  seven,  and  clause  two,  we  have  this  provision: 

"Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
the  Senate  shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law,  be  presented  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States.  If  he  affirm  it,  he  shall  sign  it ;  but  if  not,  he  shall 
return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house  in  which  it  shall  have  origina 
ted,  who  shall  enter  the  objections  at  large  upon  their  journal,  and  pro 
ceed  to  reconsider  it.  If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two  thirds  of  that 
House  shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  the  objec 
tions,  to  the  other  House,  by  which  it  shall  likewise  be  reconsidered  and 
if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  that  House,  it  shall  become  a  law." 

Now,  what  has  been  the  universal  construction  given  to  the 
words  "  two  thirds  of  that  House  "  in  practical  legislation  ?  Has  it 
been  that  it  required  two  thirds  of  all  the  members  constituting 
the  House  and  Senate  to  pass  a  bill  over  the  veto  of  the  Presi 
dent  ?  Never.  The  construction  given,  from  the  beginning  down 
to  the  present  time,  without  an  exception,  was,  and  is,  that  two 
thirds  of  those  voting,  in  each  House,  may  pass  a  bill  over  the 
executive  veto,  though  there  be  barely  a  quorum  present  and  vo 
ting.  Such  has  been  the  uniform  construction,  not  of  this,  but 
another  clause.,  which  authorized  the  expulsion  of  a  member  of 
either  House,  by  a  two-third  vote — two  thirds  of  those  voting,  if 
there  be  a  quorum,  is  all  that  is  necessary  for  a  compliance  with 
that  clause  of  the  constitution.  So  in  our  own  State  constitution 
it  is  provided : 

"That  the  governor  shall  have  the  revision  of  all  bills  passed  by  both 
Houses,  before  they  become  laws,  but  two  thirds  of  both  Houses  may 
pass  a  law  notwithstanding  his  dissent." 

Under  this  clause  of  our  State  constitution,  the  construction 
has  been  uniformly  .given.  Two  thirds  of  those  voting  in  each 
House,  if  a  quorum  be  present,  is  all  that  is  required.  Again,  in 
another  article  of  our  constitution^  we  have  a  provision  for  its 
amendment,  in  these  words  : 

'•  No  part  of  this  constitution  shall  be  altered,  unless  a  bill  for  that 
purpose,  specifying  the  alteration  intended  to  be  made,  shall  have  been  read 
three  times  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  three  times  in  the  Senate, 
on  three  several  days  in  each  House,  and  agreed  to  by  two  thirds  of  each 
House,  respectively  ;  and  when  any  such  bill  shall  be  passed,  in  manner  afore 
said,  the  same  shall  be  published  at  least  six  months  previous  to  the  next 
ensuing  election  for  members  of  the  general  assembly,  and  if  such  altera 
tions,  or  any  of  them  so  proposed,  should  be  agreed  to,  in  the  first  session 
thereafter,  by  two  thirds  of  each  branch  of  the  general  assembly,  after  the 
same  shall  have  been  read  three  times,  on  three  separate  days,  in  each  re 
spective  House,  then,  and  not  otherwise,  the  same  shall  become  a  part  of 
this  constitution.'' 

Under  this  clause,  two  thirds  of  each  branch  of  the  general 
assembly  has  always  been  held  to  mean  two  thirds  of  those 


678  SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGLTSTA. 

voting  on  any  proposed  amendment — provided  a  quorum  were 
present.  Some  of  the  most  important  amendments  that  have 
been  made  to  the  constitution,  since  its  first  adoption,  was  made 
by  a  much  smaller  number  than  two  thirds  of  the  entire  House, 
in  either  branch.  The  one  establishing  the  Supreme  Court  was 
made  by  a  vote  not  much  over  a  majority  in  each  House.  If  a 
constitution  can  be  thus  amended — if  this  construction  holds  and 
obtains  in  all  such  cases,  both  Federal  and  State,  why  should  it 
not  be  held  in  a  similar  rule,  founded  on  similar  principles  in  a 
party  convention,  especially  as  that  convention  had  adopted  the 
rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
where  always  a  two-third  vote  is  held  to  be  two  thirds  of  those 
voting  on  any  question  ? 

It  is  immaterial  with  me,  then,  whether  Mr.  Douglas  got  two 
hundred  and  twelve,  or  one  hundred  and  ninety-six,  or  one  hun 
dred  and  eighty-one  and  a  half,  or  one  hundred  and  fifty-four,  as 
has  been  variously  contended  ;  in  either  case  he  got  two  thirds  of 
those  voting  in  the  convention,  as  it  then  stood — as  it  was  then 
constituted.  If  there  were  but  one  hundred  and  ninety-six  mem 
bers  present  when  he  got  one  hundred  and  eighty-one  and  a  half, 
he  got  two  thirds  of  the  body,  according  to  all  our  parliamentary 
rules  of  construction.  And  if  the  Alabama  and  Louisiana  dele 
gates,  who  voted  for  him,  be  counted  out,  and  after  reducing  his 
vote  to  one  hundred  and  fifty-four,  as  is  contended  by  some,  the 
convention  having  but  one  hundred  and  ninety-six  in  it,  still  he 
had  two  thirds,  according.to  the  same  rule  or  principle  of  construc 
tion  which  would  authorize  a  bill  to  be  passed  over  an  executive 
veto,  or  cause  any  change  to  be  made  in  the  fundamental  law  of 
our  own  State.  I  therefore  consider  him  the  regularty  nominated 
candidate  of  the  democratic  party,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the 
support  of  his  party. 

No  other  rule  of  construction  can  be  practically  worked.  How 
would  it  be  with  Breckinridge  and  Lane,  who  are  claimed  to  be 
the  representatives  of  the  national  democratic  party  ?  In  the 
convention  that  nominated  them,  the  same  two-third  rule,  if  I 
am  not  mistaken,  was  adopted — the  old  rule  of  the  party,  I  mean, 
and  not  the  construction  put  upon  it  at  Charleston,  for  with  that 
construction  they  never,  could  have  made  a  nomination.  Their 
convention  consisted  of  but  one  hundred  and  live  electoral  votes 
— very  little  over  one  third,  all  told,  of  the  electoral  vote  of  the 
Union — so  that  if  the  same  construction  had  been  put  upon  it  in 
that  convention,  which  is  insisted  should  be  in  the  other,  they 
never  could  have  nominated  anybody — if  they  had  balloted  until 
doomsday.  Then  let  no  man  abandon  his  party  on  the  ground 
that  the  candidate  was  not  regularly  nominated.  So  much  for  this 
point.  I  pass  to  another  objection. 

This,  in  the  order,  relates  to  the  platform.  The  platform,  it  is 
said,  is  not  sound — it  is  not  national — it  does  not  sustain  the 
rights  of  the  South  And  what  is  the  platform  adopted  ?  I  need 


SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA.  679 

not  read  it — it  is  known  to  you  all.  It  is  the  well-known  plat 
form  of  the  party  based  upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories,  as  set  forth  at 
Cincinnati  in  1856,  with  an  additional  resolution,  affirming  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  Was  not 
this  all  that  our  State  convention  had  asked  ?  Was  not  this  plat 
form,  even  without  the  additional  resolution,  sound  enough  in 
1856  ?  Was  it  not  broad  enough,  and  strong  enough,  for  the 
democracy  of  the  whole  Union  then?  And  if  so  then,  why  not 
now  ?  Do  principles  change  so  soon  ?  Has  any  thing  occurred 
since,  requiring  any  new  tests  ?  If  so,  when,  and  where,  and 
what  ?  Did  our  northern  friends  fail  to  adhere^  to  it  ?  Did  they 
not  rather  renew  their  pledge  to  it,  with  the  additional  demand, 
as  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  made  by  our  State  convention  last 
December  ? 

If,  then,  this  platform  of  principles  was  sufficient  to  guard  and 
protect  our  rights,  and  interest,  and  honor,  in  1856,  why  is  it  not 
in  1860,  especially  with  the  additional  guarantee  given  ?  This 
question  I  propound  to  all  candid  and  reflecting  minds.  It  is 
one  that. the  country  expects  an  answer  to,  by  those  who  left  the 
convention  because  of  the  principles  adopted,  and  whose  seces 
sion  has  produced  the  strifes  and  divisions  that  now  pervade  the 
land.  The  only  answer  to  it  I  have  yet  seen  has  been  given  by 
a  committee  of  the  seceding  delegation  from  this  State.  It  is 
in  their  address,  assigning  the  reasons  for  their  course.  It  will 
be  recollected  that  though  they  quit  the  convention  at  Charles 
ton,  yet  by  great  efforts  made,  were  by  urgent  solicitation  reap- 
pointed  to  Baltimore,  via  Richmond.  But  they  did  not  enter  the 
convention  at  Baltimore,  after  they  got  there,  and  for  not  doing 
so  gave  these  reasons  : 

"  That  we  are  blameless  in  this  matter,  seems  too  plain  to  admit  of  a 
doubt.  We  could  not  enter  a  convention,  as  a  favor,  at  the  sacrifice  of 
principle,  and  of  the  honor  and  sovereignty  of  our  State.  Nor  have  our 
demands  been  exorbitant  or  exacting.  We  have  simply  asked  for  protection 
for  our  property  from  th«  government  which  demands  our  allegiance. 
These  seem  to  us  to  be  co-relative  duties — allegiance  to  government  in  re 
turn  for  protection  to  life,  liberty,  and  property.  It  appears  to  us  unneces 
sary  to  argue  the  question,  for  the  absolute  right  of  protection  to  property  by 
the  government,  in  all  its  branches,  is  undenied  by  any  man  of  any  party. 
But  the  application  of  this  to  our  slaves,  in  the  territories,  is  denied,  and 
refused  upon  the  untenable  and  fanatical  ground  that  property  is  not  re 
cognized  in  slaves." 

This  is  signed  by  three  gentlemen  who  stand  high  in  the  estima 
tion  of  the  public.  The  statement  seems  to  imply,  if  it  means 
any  thing,  that  the  convention  to  which  they  had  been  sent  had 
refused  to  recognize  a  universally  admitted  principle  of  right, 
"  upon  the  untenable  and  fanatical  ground  that  property  is  not 
recognized  in  slaves."  I  have  nothing  to  say  against  the  character 
of  these  gentlemen.  One  of  them  is  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 


680  SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

Representatives  of  your  State  legislature — another  a  gentleman  of 
position  in  Savannah,  and  another  an  editor  with  high  personal 
standing  in  Albany.  But  I  do  say  that  I  think  it  would  be  a 
difficult  task  for  them  to  sustain  this  statement  by  proof.  What 
action  of  the  convention  justifies  it  ?  What  part  of  the  platform 
adopted  denied  that  "  property  is  denied  in  slaves  ?"  Nay,  more, 
what  member  of  the  convention,  who  refused  their  demand,  holds 
an}r  such  "  untenable  and  fanatical"  opinions  ?  Not  one,  I  ven 
ture  to  affirm.  Then  why  was  this  statement  made  ?  They  must 
answer  who  gave  it  as  the  best  reason  they  had  why  they  should 
be  held  blameless  for  the  manner  in  which  they  performed  the  great 
public  trust  committed  to  their  charge.  Seeing  no  evidence  of 
any  such  fanatical  sentiment  in  the  action  of  the  convention,  or 
on  the  part  of  any  member  of  it ;  having  been  satisfied  with  the 
platform  in  1856,  and  seeing  no  good  reason  to  change  my  opinion 
in  relation  to  it,  I  am  therefore  satisfied  with  it  still.  It  was,  in 
my  judgment,  good  then,  and  good  now,  and  will  be  good  for  all 
time  to  come.  In  its  own  language,  it  contains  the  only  wise  and 
safe  solution  of  those  sectional  questions  which  have  so  often 
tearfully  threatened  the  peace  of  the  Union,  and  which, may  yet 
be  its  destruction,  if  the  principles  therein  set  forth  be  departed 
from.  So  much,  therefore,  for  the  objection  to  the  platform. 

I  come  now  to  the  man.  Here,  I  doubt  not,  lies  the  chief  one 
of  all  the  objections.  We  should  have  had  no  secession,  no  com 
plaint  about  the  want  of  a  two-third  vote,  no  objection  to  the 
platform,  had  any  other  man  been  the  decided  choice  of  the 
convention,  but  Mr.  Douglas.  The  secession  was  not  from  princi 
ple  ;  not  from  the  manner  of  voting ;  but  from  the  man  whose 
strength,  in  the  convention,  was  far  ahead  of  any  of  his  competi 
tors  for  the  nomination. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  objections  to  him.  That  he  is  a  man 
of  great  ability,  all  admit.  His  integrity  and  purity  of  character 
none  assail.  That  he  was  the  favorite  of  the  convention,  no  one 
can  deny.  Whether  he  really  had  a  majority,  or  not,  as  a  first 
choice,  no  one  will  pretend  but  what  he  Jiad  at  least  three  times 
as  many,  as  a  first  choice,  as  any  other  man  before  the  conven 
tion.  Then,  what  are  the  objections  to  him,  which  are  sought  to 
justify  the  rupture  of  the  party  because  of  his  nomination  ? 

The  sum  and  substance  of  their  objections,  as  I  understand 
them,  amounts  to  this,  and  this  only,  that  he  refuses  to  declare  it 
to  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  do  what  his  assailants  say  they 
will  not  do  themselves.  They  say  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
protect  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  yet  say  that  they  will  never 
discharge  this  duty  by  voting  for  an}r  such  law.  He  refuses  to 
make  any  such  declaration  of  duty  never  to  be  performed.  This 
is  about  the  whole  difference  between  him  and  his  assailants,  for 
all  practical  purposes,  so  far  as  the  question  of  protection  is  con- 
cerned,  about  which  we  hear  so  much.  He  says,  he  does  not 
believe  it  to  be  his  duty  to  do  a  certain  thing,  and  therefore  will 


SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN  AUGUSTA.  681 

not  do  it.  They  say  they  believe  it  to  be  their  duty  to  do  the 
same  thing,  but  without  a  therefore  or  a  wherefore  say  they  will 
not  do  it. 

This  seems  to  me,  I  repeat,  to  be  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
objections  to  Mr.  Douglas'  peculiar  views  upon  the  territorial 
policy  of  the  country  ;  for  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  importance, 
none,  practically,  whatever,  whether  the  people  of  a  territoiy  have 
a  right  to  protect  or  exclude  slave  property,  or  whether  it  is  the 
duty  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  to  protect  it  in  the  territories,  if 
their  legislatures  refuse  to  protect  or  adopt  unfriendly  legislation, 
if  this  duty  on  the  part  of  Congress  is  never  to  be  performed  — 
and  that  is  my  understanding  of  the  position  of  the  protectionist. 

But  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Douglas  entertains  views  and  doctrines 
inconsistent  with  the  equal  rights  of  the  South  —  that  according 
to  his  doctrine,  slave  property  in  the  territories  does  not  stand 
upon  the  same  footing  with  other  propert}'.  This  is  the  substance 
of  the  objection,  as  I  have  met  with  it  ;  and,  if  it  be  well-founded, 
it  is  a  good  one.  I  should  never  advocate  the  election  of  any  man 
to  the  Presidency,  who  denied  the  equality  of  the  States,  and  the 
equality  of  rights  of  the  citizens  of  all  the  £>tates,  both  as  to 
person  and  property  in  the  public  territories. 

My  position  on  this  subject  is  so  well  and  fully  set  forth,  in 
what  is  known  as  the  minority  report,  at  the  last  June  conven 
tion  of  the  democratic  part}7  at  Milledgeville,  I  will  read  two  of 
those  resolutions  : 


That  we  reaffirm  the  Cincinnati  platform,  with  the  follow 
ing1  additional  propositions  : 

"  1st.  That  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  an  equal  right  to  set 
tle  with  their  property,  of  any  kind,  in  the  organized  territories  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott,  which  we  recognize  as  the  cor 
rect  exposition  of  the  constitution  in  this  particular,  slave  property  stands 
upon  the  same  footing  as  all  other  descriptions  of  property,  and  that 
neither  the  general  government,  nor  any  territorial  government  can 
destroy  or  impair  the  right  to  slaver  property  in  the  common  territories, 
any  more  than  the  right  to  any  other  description  of  property  ;  that 
property  of  all  kinds,  slaves  as  well  as  any  other  species  of  property,  in  the 
territories,  stands  upon  the  same  equal  and  broad  constitutional  basis, 
and  subject  to  like  principles  of  recognition  and  protection  in  the  legisla 
tive.  judicial,  and  executive  departments  of  the  government. 

"2d.  That  we  will  support  the  man  who  may  be  nominated  by  the 
Baltimore  convention  for  the  ^residency  who  holds  the  principles  set 
forth  in  the  foregoing  proposition,  and  who  will  give  them  his  indorse 
ment  ;  and  that  we  will  not  hold  ourselves  bound  to  support  any  man  who 
may  be  the  nominee  who  entertains  principles  inconsistent  with  those  set 
forth  in  the  above  propositions  or  who  denies  that  slave  property  in  the 
territories  does  stand  on  an  equal  footing  and  on  the  same  constitutional 
basis  of  other  descriptions  of  property." 

These  resolutions  were  offered  in  that  convention  by  Hon.  IT. 
V.  Johnson,  our  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency.  They,  in  my 


SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

judgment,  set  forth  true,  correct,  and  sound  doctrines,  and  upon 
them  I  stand  to-night. 

To  my  amazement,  I  see  the  executive  committee  of  the  seceding 
convention  at  Baltimore  have  published  these  resolutions,  with  a 
view  to  show  that  Gov.  Johnson,  standing  on  them,  could  not 
support  Mr.  Douglas.  They  virtually  admit  that  the  principles 
set  forth  in  them  are  right,  and  say,  that  according  to  the  second 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Johnson,  before  the  Georgia  convention, 
we  stand  pledged  not  to  support,  or  vote  for  Mr.  Douglas. 

Let  us  see  whether  they  or  I  am  mistaken.  Let  us  see  what 
Mr.  Douglas'  views  upon  this  subject  are  ?  Let  him  speak  for 
himself.  He  has  spoken  often,  repeatedly.  He  is  upon  the 
record ;  and  I  shall  now  read  his  position  from  the  record.  Here 
is  what  he  said  in  the  Senate,  on  the  23d  February,  1859,  in  a 
discussion  with  Mr.  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  on  this  very  subject. 
I  read  from  the  Congressional  Globe.  Hear  what  Mr.  Douglas 
himself  says,  as  to  his  position : 

"  We,"  that  is,  he  and  Senator  Brown,  who  goes  for  Congressional  pro 
tection,  "agree  that,  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  slaves  are  property,  standing  on  an  equal  footing  with  all 
other  property ;  and  that,  consequently,  the  owner  of  a  slave  has  the 
same  right  to  emigrate  to  a  territory  and  carry  his  slave  property  with 
him,  as  the  owner  of  any  other  species  of  property  has  to  move  there  and 
carry  his  property  with  him. 

"  Mr.  DOOLITTLE.     Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me 

"Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  am  replying  to  the  senator  from  Mississippi  now,  and 
would  prefer,  therefore,  to  go  on. 

"  Mr.  DOOLITTLE.  I  wish  to  put  a  question  to  the  honorable  senator 
from  Illinois  on  that  point. 

"Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  desire  to  deal  with  this  point  now.  At  another  time 
the  senator  can  present  his  point.  The  right  .of  transit  to  and  from  the 
territories  is  the  same  for  one  species  of  property  as  it  is  for  all  others. 
Thus  far,  the  senator  from  Mississippi  and  myself  agree  that  slave  pro 
perty  in  the  territories  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  every  other  species 
of  property.  Now,  the  question  arises,  to  what  extent  is  property,  slaves 
included,  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  territory  ?  Whatever  power  the 
territorial  legislature  has  over  other  species  of  property,  extends,  in  my 
judgment,  to  the  same  extent,  and  in  like  manner,  to  the  slave  property. 
The  territorial  legislature  has  the  same  power  to  legislate  in  respect 
to  slaves  that  it  has  in  regard  to  any  other  property,  to  the  same  extent, 
and  no  further.  If  the  senator  wishes  to  know  what  power  it  has  over 
slaves  in  the  territories,  I  answer,  let  him  tell  me  what  power  it  has  to 
legislate  over  every  other  species  of  property,  either  by  encouragement  or 
by  taxation,  or  in  any  other  mode,  and  he  has  my  answer  in  .regard  to 
slave  property. 

"  But  the  senator  says  that  there  is  something  peculiar  in  slave  pro 
perty,  requiring  further  protection  than  other  species  of  property.  If  so, 
it  is  the  misfortune  of  those  who  own  that  species  of  property.  He  tells 
us  that  if  the  territorial  legislature  fails  to  pass  a  slave-code  for  the  terri 
tories,  fails  to  pass  police  regulations  to  protect  slave  property,  the  absence 
of  such  legislation  practically  excludes  slave  property,  as  effectually  as  a 
constitutional  prohibition  would  exclude  it.  I  agree  to  that  proposition. 
He  says,  furthermore,  that  it  is  competent  for  the  territorial  legislature, 


SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN  AUGUSTA.  683 

by  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power,  and  other  functions  within  the 
limits  of  the  constitution,  to  adopt  unfriendly  legislation,  which  practi 
cally  drives  slavery  out  of  the  territories.  I  agree  to  that  proposition. 
That  is  just  what  I  said,  and  all  I  said,  and  just  what  I  meant,  by  my 
Freeport  speech,  in  Illinois,  upon  which  there  has  been  so  much  com 
ment  throughout  the  country. 

''But,  the  senator  says  that  while  non-action  by  the  territorial  legisla 
ture  excludes  slavery;  and  while  the  territorial  legislature  may,  within  the 
limits  of  the  federal' constitution,  adopt  such  a  system  of  unfriendly  legis 
lation,  as,  in  effect  to  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits,  yet  it  is  wrong  for 
the  legislature  to  pursue  that  policy  ;  and,  because  the  territorial  legis 
lature  ought  not  to  adopt  that  line  of  policy,  he  will  not  be  content  with 
such  legislation,  but  will  appeal  to  Congress  and  demand  a  congressional 
code  of  laws  protecting  slavery  in  the  territories,  in  opposition  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people.  Well,  sir,  his  conclusion  is  a  logical  one,  unless  my 
position  is  right.  All  men  must  agree  that  non-action  by  the  territorial 
legislature  is  practical  exclusion.  If  the  people  of  a  territory  want 
slavery,  they  will  protect  it  by  a  slave-code.  If  they  do  not  want  slavery 
^— if  they  believe  it  is  not  necessary — if  they  are  of  opinion  that  their 
interests  do  not  require  it,  or  will  be  prejudiced  by  it,  they  will  not  furnish 
the  necessary  remedies  and  police  regulations,  usually  called  a  slave-code 
for  its  protection." — (Cong.  Globe,  page  1,244,  part  second,  Feb.  23, 1859.) 

From  this,  it  clearly  appears  that  Mr.  Douglas  does  recognize 
property  in  slaves,  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  this  species  of 
property  in  the  territories  stands  upon  the  same  broad  constitu 
tional  basis  of  right  and  equality  as  all  other  kinds  of  property — 
and,  because  it  is  property,  he  contends  that  it  is,  like  all  other 
kinds  of  property,  a  rightful  subject  of  legislation  by  the  law- 
making  power  in  the  territory — no  more  and  no  less. 

But  hear  him  further,  in  the  same  speech: 

"  Mr.  GREEN.    Will  the  senator  permit  me  to  ask  him  a  single  question  ? 

"Mr.  DOUGLAS.     Certainly. 

"  Mr.  GREEN.  If  a  law,  merely  providing  protection,  is  to  be  called  a 
slave-code,  then  I  ask,  if  larceny,  in  general  terms,  were  punished  by  the 
territorial  law,  and  the  legislature  should  except  the  larceny  of  slaves, 
would  he  say  he  would  submit  to  that,  at  the  option  of  the  legislature. 

"  Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  is  immaterial  to  me,  whether  you  call  this  legisla 
tion  a  slave-code  or  by  any  other  name.  I  will  call  it  by  any  name  the 
Senate  chooses.  I  wish  it  to  be  understood,  however,  and  to  use  such  lan 
guage  as  conveys  the  idea.  I  take  the  language  of  the  senator  from 
Mississippi,  if  that  is  satisfactory.  All  I  have  to  say,  on  the  point  pre 
sented  by  the  senator  from  Missouri,  is  this  :  While  our  constitution  does 
not  provide  remedies  for  stealing  negroes,  it  does  not  provide  remedies  for 
stealing  dry  goods,  or  horses,  or  any  other  species  of  property.  You  can 
not  protect  any  property  in  the  territories,  without  laws  furnishing 
remedies  for  its  violation,  and  penalties  for  its  abuse.  Nobody  pretends 
that  you  are  going  to  pass  laws  of  Congress  making  a  criminal  code  for 
the  territories,  with  reference  to, other  species  of  property. 

•'The  Congress  of  the  United  States  never  yet  passed  an* act  creating  a 
criminal  code  for  any  organized  territory.  It  simply  organizes  the  terri 
tory,  and  leaves  its  legislature  to  make  its  own  criminal  code.  Congress 
never  passed  a  law  to  protect  any  species  of  property  in  the  organized 
territories  ;  it  leaves  its  protection  in  the  territorial  legislatures.  The 
question  is  whether  we  shall  make  an  exception  as  to  slavery.  The 


684  SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

Supreme  Court  makes  no  such  distinction.  It  recognizes  slaves  as  pro 
perty.  When  they  are  taken  to  a  territory,  they  are  on  an  equal  footing 
with  other  property,  and  dependent  upon  the  same  system  of  legislation 
for  protection  as  other  property.  While  all  other. property  is  dependent 
on  the  territorial  legislation  for  protection,  I  hold  that  slave  property 
must  look  to  the  same  authority  for  its  protection." 

And  further  on,  in  the  same  speech,  he  uses  this  language — in 
reply  to  another  inquiry  from  Senator  Brown : 

"  Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  am  ready  to  answer  any  inquiry  of  the  senator  from 
Mississippi,  whether,  if  I  believe  the  Maine  liquor  law  to  be  unconstitu 
tional  and  wrong,  and  if  a  territorial  legislature  should  pass  it,  I  would 
vote  here  to  annul  ?  I  tell  him  no. 

"  If  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Maine  liquor  law,  let  them  have  it. 
If  they  do  not  want  it,  and  any  citizen  thinks  that  law  violates  the  consti 
tution,  let  him  make  a  case,  and  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court.  If  the 
court  sustains  his  objection,  the  law  is  void.  If  it  overrules  the  objection, 
the  decision  must  stand  until  the  people,  who  alone  are  to  be  affected  by 
it,  may  choose  to  repeal  it.  So  I  say  with  reference  to  slavery.  Let  the 
tearitorial  legislature  pass  just  such  laws  in  regard  to  slavery  as  they 
think  they  have  a  right  to  enact  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  If  I  do  not  like  those  laws,  I  will  not  vote  to  repeal  them ;  but 
anybody  aggrieved  may  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  if  they  are 
constitutional,  they  must  stand;  and  if  they  are  unconstitutional,  they 
are  void.  That  was  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  as  it  was  understood 
at  the  time  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  passed.  That  is  the  way  it  was 
explained  and  argued  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  before  the  country.  It  was  distinctly  understood  that  Congress  was 
never  to  intervene  for  or  against  slavery,  or  for  or  against  any  other  insti 
tution  in  the  territories,  but  leave  the  courts  to  decide  all  constitutional 
questions  as  they  might  arise,  and  the  President  to  carry  the  decrees  of 
the  court  into  effect ;  and,  in  case  of  resistance  to  his  authority  in  execu 
ting  the  judicial  process,  let  him  use,  if  necessary,  the  whole  military 
force  of  the  country,  as  provided  by  existing  laws." 

In  these  extracts  is  a  full  and  clear  exposition  of  those  views  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  which  have  been  so  fiercely  denounced.  I  have  read 
them  to  you  at  large,  that  you  may  judge  for  yourselves  whether 
they  put  that  kind  of  property  upon  any  other  basis  in  the  terri 
tories  than  all  other  kinds  of  property ;  whether  all,  in  his  view, 
does  not  stand  on  the  same  equal  constitutional  footing.  In  these 
views  you  also  have  a  clear  exposition  of  non-intervention  or  non- 
action,  as  Mr.  Calhonn  called  it,  on  the  part  of  Congress.  The  whole 
subject  of  slavery  in*  the  territories  was  to  be  left  to  the  people, 
subject  to  no  limitation  or  restriction  but  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  If  the  territorial  legislature  passed  any  law  in 
fringing  upon  the  rights  of  the  slaveholder,  or  the  rights  of  any 
person  holding  other  kinds  of  property,  either  by  taxation  or  any 
other  kind  of  law,  the  subject  was  to  be  left  to  the  courts,  with  an 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  but  not  to  Congress.  Property  of 
all  kinds  was  put  upon  the  same  footing.  And  so  far  from  Mr. 
Douglas  warring  against  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  is 
alleged  in  the  last  extract  read,  it  appears  that  he  stands  pledged 


SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA.  685 

to  the  execution  of  the  judicial  process,  whatever  it  may  be,  in 
any  case,  with  the  whole  military  force  of  the  country. 

The  question  I  am  now  presenting  is  not  what  his  opinions 
are  as  to  the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  territorial  legislatures 
over  slaves  or  other  property,  but  that  he  puts  all  upon  the  same 
footing,  and  that  they  have  no  more  power  over  rights  to  slaves 
than  over  other  kinds  of  rights  of  person  and  property.  Their 
powers  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  under  the  consti 
tution,  are  the  same,  and  to  be  left  to  the  courts  and  not  to  Con 
gress.  If  he  ever  uttered  a  sentiment  different  from  those  now 
presented  on  this  subject,  in  the  many  speeches  he  has  made 
upon  it  in  the  Senate,  or  on  the  stump,  I  have  never  met  with  it. 
The  other  day  at  Saratoga,  in  New  York,  he  used  this  lan 
guage  :— 

'•  I  believe  in  the  equality  of  the  States,  and  in  the  equal  rights  of  the 
citizens  of  all  the  States  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States.  What 
ever  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of  any  State  may  enjoy  in  the  territories  per 
tain  alike  to  the  citizens  of  all  the  States,  and  on  whatever  terras  the  citizen 
of  any  State  may  move  into  the  territories  with  his  property,  the  citizen 
of  every  other  State  may  go  and  carry  his  property,  and  enjoy  the  same 
under  the  protection  of  the  law." 

If  the  territorial  legislatures  pass  unconstitutional  laws  in 
relation  to  slave  property,  or  any  other  kind  of  property,  all  alike 
are  to  be  left  to  the  courts,  and  not  to  Congress.  In  the  judi 
cial,  executive,  and  legislative  departments  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment,  slaves  stand  upon  the  same  principles  of  recognition  as 
other  property  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
entitled  to  protection  on  the  same  principles  as  other  property. 

All  rights'  of  persons  and  property  of  every  kind  stand  upon 
the  same  footing.  When  we  advance  a  step  further,  and  inquire 
how  far  a  territorial  legislature  may  constitutionally  impair  the 
right  or  usefulness  of  any  kind  of  property,  by  any  system  of 
laws  they  may  enact,  a  new  question  arises.  On  this  I  differ 
with  Mr.  Douglas.  It  is  not,  however,  a  point  involving,  in  my 
judgment,  either  our  equality  in  the  Union,  our  honor  as  a 
people,  or  any  principle  essential  to  our  security  or  future  safety. 
It  is  a  matter  affecting  alone  the  private  rights  of  those  who  go 
into  the  territories.  This  difference  of  opinion  between  him  and 
those  who  take  the  same  view  of  it  as  I  do,  it  is  agreed  on  both 
sides,  are  to  be  determined  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  in 
the  land. 

By  some,  it  is  contended  that  this  point  has  already  been 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  If  so, 
then  there  is  an  end  of  the  question.  For  he  has  again  and 
again  indorsed  every  principle  decided  in  that  case ;  and  all 
that  is  necssary  is  for  the  executive  to  see  that  the  decision  is 
carried,  into  effect  by  the  whole  military  force  of  the  country, 
if  need  be. 

But,  fellow-citizens,  there  is  nothing  that  men,  and  even  law- 


686  SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

yers,  and  learned  lawyers,  differ  more  widely  about  than  upon 
the  principles  embraced  in  a  judicial  question.  So  it  is  in  this 
case.  I  am  not  going  into  an  argument  upon  its  merits  ;  suffice 
it  to  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  principles  were  decided  in  that 
case  that  would  control  those  involved  in  a  case  arising  under 
such  a  territorial  law.  But  until  such  a  case  does  arise,  it  can 
not  be  definitely  and  judicially  settled.  He  and  others  who 
indorse  every  word  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  believe,  and,  I  have 
no  doubt,  honestly  believe,  that  the  principles  decided  in  that  case 
would  not  control  a  case  arising  under  a  law  that  might  be 
passed  by  a  territorial  legislature. 

I  have  bejen  asked  informally  two  questions,  which  I  will  here 
answer. 

The  first  is  :  How,  differing  from  Mr.  Douglas  on  this  point,  as 
I  do,  I,  can  give  him  my  support  ? 

I  answer,  because  I  look  upon  the  matter  as  involving  no  prin 
ciple  of  any  vital  importance. 

Practically,  it  amounts  to  nothing.  With  Mr.  Douglas'  view, 
slavery  will  go  wherever  the  people  want  it,  and  no  law  of  Con 
gress  or  a  territorial  legislature  will  ever  carry  it  where  they  do 
not  want  it.  Under  the  operation  of  his  principles,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  our  right  of  expansion  to  the  utmost  limit  of 
capacity  and  population  is  complete ;  on  the  question,  therefore, 
of  the  right  or  power  of  the  people  of  an  organized  territory 
through  their  territorial  legislature,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  exclude  slavery  while  in  a  territorial  condition-,  and  before 
they  come  to  form  a  State  constitution,  I  stand  where  Burke, 
one  of  the  greatest  statesman  that  England  or  any  other  country 
ever  produced,  stood  upon  the  same  question  of  the  right  or 
power  of  the  British  Parliament  to  tax  the  colonies.  That  was 
a  question  upon  which  great  and  learned  men  differed,  and  so 
is  this ;  and  on  this,  I  say  to  you  to-night,  what  he  said  on  the 
other  in  the  House  of  Commons  : 

"  Sir,  I  think  y«u  must  perceive  that  I  am  resolved  this  day  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  right  of  taxation.  Some  gentle 
men  startle,  but  it  is  true.  I  put  it  totally  out  of  the  question.  It  is 
less  than  nothing  in  my  consideration.  I  do  not  wonder,  nor  will  you, 
sir,  in  that  gentlemen  of  profound  learning  are  fond  of  displaying  it  on 
this  profound  subject.  But  my  consideration  is  narrow,  confined,  and 
wholly  limited  to  the  policy  of  the  question.  I  do  not  examine  whether 
the  giving  away  a  man's  money  be  a  power  accepted  and  reserved  out  of 
the  general  trust  of  government,  and  how  far  all  mankind,  in  all  forms  of 
polity,  are  entitled  to  an  exercise  of  that  right  by  the  charter  of  nature ; 
or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  a  right  of  taxation  is  necessarily  involved  in 
the  great  principle  of  legislation,  and  inseparable  from  the  ordinary 
supreme  power.  These  are  deep  questions,  where  great  names  militate 
against  each  other,  where  reason  is  perplexed,  and  an  appeal  to  authori 
ties  only  quicken  confusion.  For  high  and  revered  authorities  lift  up  their 
heads  on  both  sides,  and  there  is  no  sure  footing  in  the  middle.  This 
point  is  the  great  '  Serbonian  boy  betwix  Damiata  and  Mount  Casing  old, 
where  armies  whole  have  sunk.'  " 


SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA.  687 

Whether  the  people  of  a  territory  have  this  right  or  not,  under 
the  constitution,  and  whatever  may  be  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  on  it,  I  am  perfectly  willing  for  them  to  exercise 
it.  If  they  have  not  got  it  "ex  debito  justitia,"  I  would,  if  I 
could,  give  it  to  them  "ex  gratia."  If  they  have  not  got  it  as 
matter  of  right,  being  one  of  the  essential  principles  of  self- 
government  under  our  system,  as  many  high  authorities  believe 
they  have,  I  would,  if  I  could,  grant  it  to  them  as  matter  of 
favor.  This  is  no  new  position  with  me  ;  it  is  but  a  repetition 
of  what  I  said  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  this  subject 
on  the  17th  of  January,  1856  ;  that  was  before  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court.  But  my  opinion  as  to  the  policy  of  the 
question  is  unchanged.  Here  is  what  I  then  said,  and  I  feel  no 
disposition  to  modify  the  sentiments  now  : — 

"  Now,  sir,  as  I  have  stated,  I  voted  for  this  bill  leaving  the  whole 
matter  to  the  people  to  settle  for  themselves,  subject  to  no  restriction  or 
limitation  but  the  constitution.  "With  this  distinct  understanding  of  its 
import  and  meaning,  and  with  a  determination  that  the  existence  of  this 
power  being  disputed  and  doubted,  it  would  be  better  and  much  more 
consistent  with  our  old  time  republican  principles  to  let  the  people  settle 
it  than  for  Congress  to  do  it.  And,  although  my  own  opinion  is  that  the 
people,  under  the  limitations  of  the  constitution,  have  not  the  rightful 
power  to  exclude  slavery  so  long  as  they  remain  in  a  territorial  condition, 
yet  I  am  willing  that  they  may  determine  it  for  themselves,  and  when 
they  please.  I  shall  never  negative  any  law  they  may  pass,  if  it  is  the 
result  of  a  fair  legislative  expression  of  the  popular  will.  Never  !  I  am 
willing  that  the  territorial  legislature  may  act  upon  the  subject  when  and 
how  they  may  think  proper.  We  got  the  congressional  restriction 
taken  off." 

"  The  territories  were  made  open  and  free  for  immigration  and  settlement 
by  the  people  of  all  the  States  alike,  with  their  property  alike.  No  odious 
and  unjust  discrimination  or  exclusion  against  any  class  or  portion;  and  I 
am  content  that  those  who  thus  go  there  from  all  sections,  shall  do  in  this 
matter  as  they  please  under  their  organic  law.  I  wanted  the  question 
taken  out  of  the  halls  of  the  national  legislation.  It  has  done  nothing 
but  disturb  the  public  peace  for  thirty-five  years  or  more.  So  long  as 
Congress  undertakes  to  manage  it,  it  will  continue  to  do  nothing  but  stir 
up  agitation  and  sectional  strife.  The  people  can  dispose  of  it  better  than 
we  can.  Why  not  then,  by  common  consent,  drop  it  at  once  and  forever  ? 
Why  not  you,  gentlemen,  around  me,  give  up  your  so-called  and  so  mis 
called  republican  ideas  of  restoring  the  Missouri  restriction,  and  let  the 
people  in  the  far  off  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  look  after  their 
own  condition,  present  and  future,  in  their  own  way. 

"  Is  it  not  much  more  consistent  with  Mr.  Adams'  ideas  of  republi 
canism  for  them  to  attend  to  their  own  domestic  matters  than  for  you  or 
us  to  undertake  to  do  it  for  them?  Let  us  attend  to  our  own  business,  and 
let  them  attend  to  theirs.  What  else  keeps  this  House  disorganized  and  sus 
pends  all  legislative  business  ?  I  wish,  sir,  in  voting  for  the  Kansas  bill, 
and  in  carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  great  priciples  established  in  1850 — 
that  memorable  epoch,  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century — and  fixing 
them  as  the  basis  and  rule  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  general  govern 
ment  in  her  territorial  policy,  to  get  rid  of  this  disturbing  question  here 
by  referring  it  unrestrictedly,  as  far  as  I  could,  under  the  constitution,  to 


SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

the  people.  If  they  have  not  the  power  to  settle  it  while  a  territory,  as  a 
matter  of  absolute  right— esc  debita  justitia,  I  was  willing,  so  far  as  I  was 
concerned  and  had  the  power  to  do  it,  to  give  it  to  them  as  a  matter  of 
favor — ex  gratia." 

So  much,  then,  for  the  first  question  asked  me,  I  see  nothing 
dangerous  in  these  doctrines  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  our  institutions 
nothing  at  war  in  the  least  with  the  great  fundamental  princi 
ples  of  popular  rights  upon  which  the  whole  fabric  of  self-govern 
ment  rests.  I  am  perfectly  willing  for  the  pioneers  of  civilization 
who  quit  the  old  States  for  new  homes  in  the  west,  to  form  and 
regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  and 
make  all  other  laws  according  to  their  liking.  It  was  in  this  way 
our  fathers  settled  this  goodly  land,  and  made  the  wilderness  to 
blossom  as  the  rose.  They  were  all  "  squatters,"  in  the  popular 
slang  of  the  day.  When  they  wanted  slaves  of  the  African  race, 
they  had  them,  and  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  their  descendants, 
with  emigrants  from  all  the  other  States  who  colonize  and  settle 
our  broad  territories,  shall  exercise  the  same  rights  of  self-gov 
ernment  that  they  did.  If  these  opinions  make  a  man  a  "  squatter 
sovereign,"  then  I  am  one.  Nicknames  will  never  drive  me  from 
the  maintainance  of  sound  principles. 

The  other  question  that  has  been  put  to  me  is :  How  I  can 
support  Mr.  Douglas,  differing  as  he  and  I  did  upon  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  ? 

To  this  I  answer.  As  widely  as  I  differed  with  him  on  that 
measure,  I  did  not  differ  more  widely  with  him  upon  it  than  I 
did  with  Mr.  Buchanan  on  the  principles  announced  in  his  annual 
message  on  the  same  subject.  As  I  did  not  arraign  the  patriot 
ism  of  Mr.  Buchanan  for  my  difference  with  him,  so  I  did  not 
that  of  Mr.  Douglas  for  my  difference  with  him.  My  difference 
with  Mr.  Buchanan  was  much  more  radical  on  principle  than  it 
was  with  Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  Buchanan  maintained  that  the  con 
stitution  of  the  State  was  to  be  submitted  to  a  popular  vote  for 
ratification,  and  if  it  were  not  so  ratified  the  State  ought  not  to 
be  admitted  under  it.  This  was  the  tenor  of  the  instructions  to 
Governor  Walker,  who  told  the  people  before  the  election  of 
delegates  to  the  convention  that  formed  the  Lecompton  constitu 
tion,  that  if  the  constitution  to  be  formed  by  them  should  not  be 
submitted  to  them  for  ratification,  the  State  would  not,  and 
ought  not,  to  be  admitted  under  it.  This  was  a  great  and 
radical  error.  It  was  claiming  for  Congres  jurisdiction  over 
the  mode  and  manner  in  which  a  State  constitution  is  to 
be  made,  which,  in  my  judgment,  was,  and  is,  just  as  dangerous 
a  doctrine  as  that  which  claims  for  Congress  jurisdiction  over 
its  subject  matter.  It  was,  in  short,  nothing  but  the  old  Missouri 
question  in  principle,  revived  again  in  a  new  form.  It  was  at 
war  with  all  proper  ideas  of  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty. 
But  when  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  presented  to  Congress, 
it  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  as  a 


SPEECH   DELIVERED  IN  AUGUSTA.  689 

whole — only  the  slavery  clause  had  been  submitted.  As  I  did 
not  agree  with  Mr.  Buchanan  on  the  principle  that  the  constitu 
tion  should  be  ratified  by  the  people  before  it  should  be  held 
good;  as  I  did  not  consider  such  a  ratification  essential  to  its 
validity — as  I  believed  that  the  convention  had  the  right  to 
submit  it  or  not,  as  the}''  pleased,  and  to  submit  the  whole  or  a 
part,  as  they  pleased,  I  took  the  constitution  as  I  found  it.  1 
stood  upon  the  strict  legality  of  the  record  before  me. 

If  Mr.  Buchanan,  or  Governor  Walker  under  him,  had  given 
such  pledge,  I  was  no  party  to  it.  The  constitution,  as  pre 
sented  to  Congress,  came  stamped  with  all  the  forms  of  regu 
larity:  I  did  not  go  behind  these.  Mr.  Douglas  held  that  as 
the  people  had  been  led  to  believe  that  the  constitution  would 
be  submitted  to  them  for  approval  or  rejection,  as  a  whole, 
which  had  not  been  done,  it  would  be  wrong  to  receive  it, 
and  admit  the  State  under  it.  He  did  not  put  his  opposition 
to  it  on  the  grounds  of  the  slavery  clause  in  it,  but  because 
the  whole  constitution  had  not  been  fairly  submitted  for  ap 
proval  or  rejection  by  the  people  as  had  been  promised.  This 
was  the  ground  of  his  opposition.  I  did  not  permit  myself  to 
questioiCas  I  do  not  now,  his  patriotism  in  that  opposition.  It 
was  on  like  grounds  Mr.  Crittenden  put  his  opposition.  I  never 
questioned  his  patriotism.  It  was  not  because  of  the  slavery 
clause,  as  some  have  charged,  that  Mr.  Crittenden  opposed  it.  I 
will  take  this  occasion  to  vindicate  him  in  that  particular. 
I  know  that  truly  great  man  well ;  and  as  widely  as  I  have  dif 
fered  from  him,  not  only  on  the  Lecompton  question,  but  upon 
other  questions,  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say  that  a  nobler, 
truer,  and  more  patriotic  spirit  breathes  not  in  this  broad  land, 
than  that  of  John  J.  Crittenden. 

Mr.  Douglas  stood  side  by  side  with  him  on  it,  and  I  consider 
him,  notwithstanding  his  position  on  that  question,  equally  noble, 
true,  and  patriotic  with  his  illustrious  compeer — so  much  for  the 
second  question. 

Having  noticed  the  most  prominent  objections  urged  against 
supporting  the  national  ticket,  as  I  have  seen  them  in  the  press, 
I  come  now,  fellow-citizens,  to  some  of  the  reasons  why  I  give 
that  ticket  a  warm  and  cordial  support.  The  points  wherein  I 
differ  from  Mr.  Douglas  are  small,  compared  with  those  wherein 
we  agree.  Upon  all  questions  of  constitutional  law  he  is  a  strict 
constructionist — of  the  straightest  sect  of  the  State-rights  school. 
Upon  our  peculiar  institution,  so  far  from  being  unsound,  unsafe, 
or  dangerous  on  all  the  essential  principles  upon  which  it  rests, 
and  its  permanency  depends,  he  is  on  the  side  of  reason  and 
truth.  He  holds  that  the  negro  is  of  an  inferior  race — that  he  is 
not  and  cannot  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States — that  he  was 
not  intended  to  be  embraced  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
— that  subordination  to  the  white  race  is  his  natural  and  normal 
44 


690  SPEECH   DELIVEKED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

condition — that  his  status  in  societ}'  is  a  question,  not  of  moral 
right,  but  one  of  political  and  social  economy  ;  and  that  every 
State  and  organized  community  have  the  right  to  fix  and  settle 
this  status  for  themselves. 

These  are  the  great  principles  and  truths  upon  which  our 
system  rests,  and  upon  which  it  must  depend  on  the  fields  of  our 
battles  with  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  On  this  arena  we 
have  got  to  meet  our  opponents  sooner  or  later.  We  live  in  an 
age  of  discussion — all  questions  of  science  and  arts,  morals 
and  governments,  must  pass  this  ordeal.  The  institution  of  Afri 
can  slavery  amongst  us  cannot  escape  it.  If  it  does  not  stand 
upon  the  immutable  principles  of  nature,  as  I  believe  it  does,  it 
must  go  down.  And  in  the  vindication  of  these  great  funda 
mental  truths,  relating  to  negro  inequality  and  his  natural 
subordinate  position,  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  our  social 
fabric,  no  man,  North  or  South,  or  in  the  world,  has  displayed 
more  boldness  and  power  than  this  same  much  abused  and 
grossly  misrepresented  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

No  man  has  ever  uttered  these,  'or  any  other  truths,  in  this 
country  with  more  peril  or  hazard  to  himself.  Whether  in  the 
Senate  or  on  the  hustings,  whether  at  the  South  or  the  North — 
whether  before  party  friends  or  abolition  mobs,  he  has  never 
shrunk  from  their  utterance  from  fear,  favor,  or  affection.  When 
duty  required  him  to  speak,  he  has  never  been  silent.  See  him 
breasting  the  anathemas  of  the  three  thousand  New  England 
clergymen,  hurled  against  him  for  the  defence  of  your  rights, 
under  the  constitution.  See  him  at  Chicago,  imperilling  even  life 
itself  in  vindication  of  the  same  cause — your  rights  under  the 
constitution — and  say  if  it  comes  with  a  good  grace,  from  a 
southern  man,  to  denounce  him  as  an  enemy  to  us  or  ours. 

Was  there  ever  blacker  ingratitude,  since  Adam's  first  great 
fall,  than  such  demonstrations  against  such  a  man  ?  Were  I  to 
remain  silent  while  I  hear  them,  and  see  him  so  unjustly  slain,  by 
those  who  know  not  what  they  do,  I  should  feel  myself  to  be 
as  guilty  of  innocent  blood  as  those  who  stood  by  and  held 
Stephen's  clothes  while  he  was  stoned  to  death.  Whatever  may 
be  his  opinions  of  popular  sovereignty,  or  squatter  sovereignty, 
or  the  right  of  self-government,  on  the  part  of  all  organized  com 
munities — call  it  what  you  will — they  are  the  same  now  that  they 
have  always  been — the  same  that  they  were  in  1856,  when  he  was 
the  favorite  of  the  Georgia  democracy  for  the  Presidency.  I 
thought  of  his  doctrine  then  just  as  I  do  now.  If  others  have 
changed  their  opinions  since,  he  has  not.  It  is  one  of  the  quali 
ties  about  him  that  increases  my  admiration,  that  he  is  no  time- 
server — he  does  not  change  with  the  popular  current — he  bends 
to  no  storm — he  maintains  his  fidelity  and  integrity  to  principle 
through  woe  as  well  as  through  weal. 

One  of  the  most  manly  exhibitions  of  moral  courage  and  nerve 
this  country  ever  witnessed,  was  seen  in  his  contest  in  Illinois  in 


SPEECH   DELIVEKED   IN   AUGUSTA.  691 

1858.  With  the  abolition  hosts  in  front,  and  all  the  forces  of  the 
administration,  so  unnaturally  and  unjustly  brought  in  the  rear, 
he  fought  the  battle  single-handed  and  alone,  achieving  a  victory 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  politics  in  this  country.  Why  should 
not  such  a  man  receive  our  support  ?  Not  only  democratic,  but 
whig  and  American — a  united  southern,  as  well  as  a  national  sup 
port  ?  Are  his  principles  not  national,  equal  and  just  to  all  ? 
Of  his  associate  on  the  ticket,  I  need  not  speak  here.  Herschel 
Y.  Johnson  needs  no  indorsement  from  any  man  in  Georgia. 
No  son  of  hers  was  ever  more  sensitively  alive  to  all  your  great 
and  most  vital  interests.  He  has  been  tried  in  the  Senate,  and 
the  executive  chair,  in  the  highest  and  most  responsible  offices, 
proving  himself  to  be  equal  to  any  and  every  occasion. 

Fellow-citizens,  there  is  much  more  I  wish  to  say — much  upon 
the  protection  platform  of  those  who  call  themselves  the  true 
democracy ;  but  my  strength  has  failed — I  am  completely  ex 
hausted.  I  can  only  add :  Look  at  the  questions  in  all  their 
bearings,  to  your  past  records,  to  your  present  and  future 
security,  and  as  patriots,  do  your  duty,  trust  the  rest  with  God. 

[Here  Mr.  S.,  being  unable  longer  to  stand,  took  his  seat.  The 
audience  remaining  quiet,  calls  were  made  for  Gumming,  Wright, 
and  others ;  but  no  one  of  the  gentlemen  called  for  appearing, 
Mr.  Geo.  W.  Lamar  arose  on  the  steps,  and  announced  that  Mr. 
S.  would  be  able  to  proceed  in  a  few  minutes.  After  some 
enlivening  airs  from  the  brass  band,  Mr.  S.  arose,  with  great 
physical  weakness,  and  proceeded.] 

I  do  not  feel,  fellow-citizens,  as  if,  in  justice  to  myself,  I  ought 
to  attempt  to  say  more  to-night ;  but  there  is  no  cause  in  which  I 
would  more  willingly  die  than  in  the  cause  of  my  country ;  and  I 
would  just  as  soon  fall  here,  at  this  time,  in  the  advocacy  of  those 
principles  upon  which  its  past  glory  has  been  achieved,  its  present 
prosperity,  and  its  future  hopes  depend,  as  anywhere  else,  or  on 
any  other  occasion.  I  told  you,  at  the  outset,  that  the  signs  of 
the  times  portend  evil.  I  gave  you  this  as  my  deliberate  judg 
ment  ;  the  future  must  make  its  own  disclosures.  But  you  need 
not  be  surprised  to  see  these  States,  now  so  peaceful,  contented, 
prosperous,  and  happy,  embroiled  in  civil  war  in  less  than  twelve 
months.  There  are  occasions  too  grave  for  excitement,  or  any 
appeal  to  the  passions.  Believe  me,  I  mean  all  1  say ;  the  most 
terrific  tornadoes,  those  which  demolish  cities,  destroy  whole  fleets, 
and  sweep  every  thing  before  them,  come  most  unexpectedly.  So 
do  the  most  violent  revolutions  amongst  men.  The  human  pas 
sions  are  the  same  everywhere.  They  are  dangerous  elements 
for  public  men,  politicans,  and  party  leaders  to  deal  with. 

The  condition  of  the  country  threatens  the  most  violent  conflict 
of  sectional  feeling,  antipathy,  and  animositj7',  at  no  distant  day. 
Should  an  outbreak  occur,  where  is  the  power  that  can  control  it  ? 
A  ball  may  be  put  in  motion  by  one  who  cannot  stop  it ;  a  fire 
may  be  kindled  by  hands  that  cannot  quench  it.  Those  who 


692  SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   AUGUSTA. 

begin  revolutions  seldom  end  them.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
the  secession  movement  at  Charleston  and  Baltimore  was  a  dis- 
unionist  movement,  or  intended  as  such  by  all  those  who  joined 
in  it.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  Lane, 
who  gave  that  movement  their  countenance,  by  accepting  nomina 
tions  under  it,  are  disunionists.  I  know  both  these  gentlemen 
well,  and  doubt  not  their  patriotism.  Had  either  of  them,  or 
both,  received  the  nominations  from  the  regular  democratic  con 
vention,  I  should  have  given  them  as  warm  a  support  as  I  do 
Messrs.  Douglas  and  Johnson.  Neither  do  I  mean  to  say  that 
the  great  mass  of  those  who  support  the  seceders'  ticket  are  dis 
unionists — no,  far  from  it.  But  I  do  mean  to  sa}rthat  the  move 
ment,  whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  in  which  it  originated, 
and  by  which  it  is  countenanced  and  supported,  whether  by  good 
men  or  bad,  tends  to  disunion — to  civil  strife — may  lead  to  it— and 
most  probably  will,  unless  arrested  by  the  virtue,  intelligence, 
and  patriotism  of  the  people.  Is  the  cause  assigned  sufficient  to 
put  in  hazard  such  even  probable  results  ?  If  it  is,  let  the  hazard 
be  made;  but  if  not,  let  us  pause  and  consider.  Much  as  I  am 
attached  to  the  Union,  and  as  clearly  convinced  as  I  am  that  it 
is  best  for  the  interests  and  welfare  of  all  sections,  that  it  shall  be 
preserved  and  maintained,  if  it  can  be,  consistently  with  the  rights, 
honor  and  security  of  all  parts,  yet  I  hold  it  subordinate  to  these 
great  objects  of  its  formation :  life  itself,  dear  as  it  must  be  held 
by  all  subordinate  to  essential  rights  and  honor.  This  is  true  of 
individuals,  and  it  is  true  of  States  and  nations.  It  was  with 
these  views  and  feelings,  the  ultimatum  of  our  State  was  set  forth 
in  what  is  known  as  the  Georgia  platform,  in  1850.  As  I  did 
then,  so  do  I  now,  hold  the  Union  subordinate  to  the  objects 
therein  set  forth.  On  that  platform  Georgia  planted  herself  then, 
and  on  it  I  trust  she  will  continue  to  stand.  On  the  principles 
of  that  platform  I  believe  the  Union  ought  to  be  maintained,  and 
can  be,  if  our  southern  people  are  but  true  to  themselves. 

Now,  this  secession  movement,  if  pushed  to  its  legitimate  conse 
quences,  is  a  departure  from  those  principles.  In  politics,  as  in 
morals,  the  first  false  step  is  th'e  dangerous  step.  It  matters  but 
little  what  men  intend  when  they  set  out  in  error.  One  step 
leads  the  way  to  another.  "  Facilis  descensus  averno."  Feelings, 
views,  and  objects  change  as  they  progress.  Ideas  that  the  mind 
would  have  revolted  at  at  first,  are  soon  cordially  embraced.  The 
Scriptural  character  of  Hazaelisa  striking  illustration  of  human 
weakness  in  this  particular.  This  Charleston  secession  movement, 
I  say,  is  founded  upon  a  departure  from  principle.  Not  only  a 
departure  from  the  Georgia  platform,  and  from  the  long-esta 
blished  principles  of  the  national  democratic  party,  but  upon  an 
entire  change  of  position  of  the  entire  South,  of  all  parties,  not 
of  all  individuals,  in  relation  to  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
Federal  government  over  the  subject  of  African  slavery. 

I  need  not  be  reminded  that  this  was  not  my  position,  and 


SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN  AUGUSTA.  693 

tliat  of  a  few  others.  This  I  know,  and  if  I  had  that  personal  van 
ity  that  could  indulge  individual  gratification  at  the  remotest 
hazard  of  the  public  welfare,  I  might  now  be  claiming  great  credit 
for  myself.  All  this  I  am  aware  of;  but  I  have  no  such  vanity. 
My  position,  however,  was  not  that  of  the  South  on  this  question. 
I  was  overruled  ;  I  yielded  to  the  demands  of  the  South.  A  set 
tlement  of  this  question  was  made  according  to  their  demands  ; 
and  with  me,  when  a  matter  is  settled,  it  is  settled  forever. 

What  I  affirm  is,  that  the  position  of  the  South,  for  twenty 
years  and  more — since  the  celebrated  Atherton  resolutions — has 
been  a  denial  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  over  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  the  States  and  territories.  It  was  upon  this  denial  of 
jurisdiction  that  the  South  resisted  the  reception  of  abolition 
petitions.  This  position  is  directly  reversed  at  Charleston  and 
Baltimore. 

If  we  go  to  Congress  with  a  request,  a  petition,  or  demand,  to 
pass  a  law  to  protect  slavery  in  the  territories,  why  may  not,  on 
the  same  principle,  so  far  as  jurisdiction  of  the  question  is  con 
cerned,  the  anti-slavery  men  of  the  North  go  before  the  same 
body  with  their  request,  petition,  or  demand,  and  ask  that  such 
law  shall  not  be  passed,  or  that  one  of  the  contrary  character 
shall  be  passed  ?  The  door  of  jurisdiction,  which  has  been  closed 
so  long,  will  be  clearly  and  fully  opened  by  this  secession  move 
ment,  if  it  is  sustained  by  the  people.  And  I  fear  it  will  be  like 
the  opening  of  that  great  door  on  the  confines  of  hell,  "  grating 
harsh  thunder"  on  its  turning  hinges,  which  permitted  the 
escape  from  the  bottomless  pit  of  all  the  foul  fiends  with  which 
this  once  heavenlike  earth  of  ours  has  been  cursed  ? 

I  say  I  fear  the  most  mischievous  consequences  from  this 
change  of  position.  What  is  to  be  gained  by  it  ?  What  is  pro 
posed  to  be  gained  by  it  ?  Do  those  who  favor  it  ever  expect  to 
get  a  law  passed  by  Congress  carrying  out  the  principles  of  their 
platform  ?  So  far  from  it,  the  most  prominent  of  their  leaders 
openly  assert  that  they  will  never  vote  for  such  a  law  themselves. 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  their  candidate,  has  declared  in  his  letter  of  ac 
ceptance  just  as  fully  against  such  a  law,  as  Mr.  Douglas  ever  did. 
Then  what  possible  good  can  ever  come  of  the  movement,  even 
if  an  election  could  be  carried  by  it  ?  But  that,  all  must  see,  is 
utterly  impossible.  Then  what  is  to  come  of  it?  What  is  to  be 
the  result  ?  If  no  good  can  follow,  may  not  great  mischief? 
This,  to  me,  appears  a  most  palpable  and  inevitable  result. 

It  may  secure  the  election  of  the  republican  candidate.  Whether 
it  will  succeed  in  this  or  not,  time  alone  can  disclose.  But  if  it 
does,  what  then  ?  Yes,  what  then  ?  Let  those  answer  who 
started  the  movement.  To  me,  it  seems  clear,  that  the  running 
of  a  Breckinridge  and  Lane  ticket,  at  the  South,  can  have  no 
possible  effect  but  to  increase  the  chances  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  which 
were  fearfully  close  before.  With  a  united  democracy,  North 
and  South,  on  the  old  platform  of  principles,  I  should  not  have 


694  SPEECH  AGAINST  SECESSION. 

permitted  myself  to  doubt  as  to  the  result,  under  the  lead  of  Mr. 
Douglas,  or  Mr.  Breckinridge,  Mr.  Cobb,  Mr.  Hunter,  or  any 
other  of  the  distinguished  competitors  for  the  nomination. 

But  now  the  only  hope  is  that  Mr.  Douglas  may  be  able  to 
carry  enough  northern  electoral  votes,  over  Mr.  Breckinridge  and 
Lincoln  both,  to  save  the  country  from  the  excitements  and  dan 
gers  of  a  republican  triumph.  This  may  be  done.  The  news 
from  New  York,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  several  other  northern 
States  is  such  as  to  furnish  grounds  of  hope,  if  not  to  inspire 
confidence.  But  it  cannot  be  done  by  giving  aid  and  comfort  to 
this  seceding  movement.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  be  done  by  an 
effort  of  patriotism  rising  superior  to,  and  stronger  than,  the 
power  of  that  movement.  This  is  my  judgment;  I  give  it  to 
you  for  what  it  is  worth,  consider  of  it  as  you  think  best.  I  do 
not  give  it  to  you  as  a  partisan  ;  I  have  no  personal  or  partisan 
feelings  on  the  subject.  In  all  that  I  have  said,  I  have  been  gov 
erned  solely  by  considerations  of  the  public  good. 

[Here  Mr.  Stephens,  after  returning  thanks  to  the  ladies  who 
had  honored  the  occasion  with  their  presence,  and  addressing 
some  remarks  to  them  pertinent  to  the  subject,  and  the  influence 
of  women  in  public  affairs,  though  they  took  no  active  part  in 
politics,  and  appealing  to  all  classes,  young  and  old,  fathers, 
mothers,  brothers,  sisters,  boys,  and  all,  to  exert  whatever  influ 
ence  they  possessed  in  the  cause  of  their  country  in  this  hour  of 
her  great  need ;  and  expressing  hope  that,  under  Providence,  the 
late  bright  prospect  of  a  great  future  and  high  career  for  our 
young  republic,  not  yet  having  reached  manhood,  might  not  be 
cut  off  and  blasted,  but  that  it  should  continue,  for  ages  to  come, 
to  bless  untold  millions,  again  took  his  seat  amidst  loud  and  pro 
longed  applause.] 


SPEECH  AGAINST  SECESSION. 

DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  GEORGIA, 

NOVEMBER  14th,  1860. 

Mr.  Stephens  entered  the  Hall  at  the  hour  of  7  P.  M.,  and  was 
greeted  with  long  and  rapturous  applause.  He  rose  and  said : 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  : — I  appear  before  you  to-night  at  the  request 
of  members  of  the  legislature  and  others,  to  speak  of  matters  of 
the  deepest  interest  that  can  possibly  concern  us  all  of  an  earthly 
character.  There  is  nothing,  no  question  or  subject  connected 
with  this  life,  that  concerns  a  free  people  so  intimately  as  that  of 
the  government  undei  which  they  live.  We  are  now,  indeed, 
surrounded  by  evils.  Never  since  I  entered  upon  the  public 


SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION.  695 

stage  has  the  country  been  so  environed  with  difficulties  and 
dangers  that  threatened  the  public  peace  and  the  very  existence 
of  society7  as  now.  I  do  not  now  appear  before  you  at  my  own 
instance.  It  is  not  to  gratify  any  desire  of  my  own  that  I  am 
here.  Had  I  consulted  my  own  ease  and  pleasure,  I  should  not 
be  before  you ;  but  believing  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  good 
citizen,  when  called  on,  to  give  his  counsels  and  views  whenever 
the  country  is  in  danger,  as  to  the  best  policy  to  be  pursued,  I 
am  here.  For  these  reasons,  and  these  only,  do  I  bespeak  a 
calm,  patient,  and  attentive  hearing. 

My  object  is  not  to  stir  up  strife,  but  to  allay  it ;  not  to  appeal 
to  3rour  passions,  but  to  your  reason.  Good  governments  can 
never  be  built  up  or  sustained  by  the  impulse  of  passion.  I  wish 
to  address  myself  to  your  good  sense,  to  your  good  judgment, 
and  if,  after  hearing,  you  disagree,  let  us  agree  to  disagree,  and 
part  as  we  met,  friends.  We  all  have  the  same  object,  the  same 
interest.  That  people  should  disagree  in  republican  govern 
ments  upon  questions  of  public  policy  is  natural.  That  men 
should  disagree  upon  all  matters  connected  with  human  investi 
gation,  whether  relating  to  science  or  human  conduct,  is  natural. 
Hence,  in  free  governments  parties  will  arise.  But  a  free  people 
should  express  their  different  opinions  with  liberality  and  charity, 
with  no  acrimony  toward  those  of  their  fellows,  when  honestly 
and  sincerely  given.  These  are  my  feelings  td-night. 

Let  us,  therefore,  reason  together.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to 
say  aught  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any  individual  who  may  be 
present;  and  if  in  the  ardency  with  which  I  shall  express  my 
opinions,  I  shall  say  any  thing  which  ma}^  be  deemed  too  strong, 
let  it  be  set  down  to  the  zeal  with  which  I  advocate  my  own  con 
victions.  There  is  with  me  no  intention  to  irritate  or  offend. 

Fellow-citizens,  we  are  all  launched  in  the  same  bark ;  we  are 
all  in  the  same  craft  in  the  wide  political  ocean — the  same  des 
tiny  awaits  us  all  for  weal  or  for  woe.  We  have  been  launched  in 
the  good  old  ship  that  has  been  upon  the  waves  for  three  quar 
ters  of  a  century,  which  has  been  in  many  tempests  and  storms, 
has  many  times  been  in  peril,  and  patriots  have  often  feared  that 
they  should  have  to  give  it  up,  yea,  have  at  times  almost  given  it 
up ;  but  still  the  gallant  ship  is  afloat.  Though  new  storms  now 
howl  around  us,  and  the  tempest  beats  heavily  against  us,  I  s&y 
to  you,  don't  give  up  the  ship ;  don't  abandon  her  yet.  If  she 
can  possibly  be  preserved,  and  our  rights,  interests,  and  security 
be  maintained,  the  object  is  worth  the  effort.  Let  us  not,  on 
account  of  disappointment  and  chagrin  at  the  reverse  of  an  elec 
tion,  give  up  all  as  lost ;  but  let  us  see  what  can  be  done  to  pre 
vent  a  wreck.  [Some  one  said,  The  ship  has  holes  in  her.] 
And  there  may  be  leaks  in  her,  but  let  us  stop  them  if  we  can ; 
many  a  stout  old  ship  has  been  saved  with  richest  cargo,  after 
many  leaks,  and  it  may  be  so  now.  [Cheers.] 

I  do  not,  on  this  occasion,  intend  to  enter  into  the  history  of 


696  SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION. 

the  reasons  or  causes  of  the  embarrassments  which  press  so 
heavily  upon  us  all  at  this  time.  In  justice  to  myself,  however, 
I  must  barely  state  upon  this  point  that  I  do  think  much  of  it 
depended  upon  ourselves.  The  consternation  that  has  come  upon 
the  people  is  the  result  of  a  sectional  election  of  a  President  of 
the  United  States,  one  whose  opinions  and  avowed  principles  are 
in  antagonism  to  our  interests  and  rights,  and  we  believe,  if  car 
ried  out,  would  subvert  the  constitution  under  which  we  now  live. 
But  are  we  entirely  blameless  in  this  matter,  my  countrymen  ? 
I  give  it  to  you  as  my  opinion,  that  but  for  the  polkyy  the  south 
ern  people  pursued,  this  fearful  result  would  not  have  occurred. 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  been  elected,  I  doubt  not,  by  a  minority  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  What  will  be  the  extent  of  that 
minority  we  do  not  yet  know,  but  the  disclosure,  when  made,  will 
how,  I  think,  that  a  majority  of  the  constitutional,  conservative 
voters  of  the  country  were  against  him  ;  and  had  the  South  stood 
firmly  in  the  convention  at  Charleston,  on  her  old  platform  of 
principles  of  non-intervention,  there  is  in  my  mind  but  little 
doubt  that  whoever  might  have  been  the  candidate  of  the  national 
democratic  party  would  have  been  elected  by  as  large  a  majority 
as  that  which  elected  Mr.  Buchanan  or  Mr.  Pierce.  Therefore, 
let  us  not  be  hasty  and  rash  in  our  action,  especially  if  the  result 
be  attributable  at  all  to  ourselves.  Before  looking  to  extreme 
measures,  let  us  first  see,  as  Georgians,  that  every  thing  which 
can  be  done  to  preserve  our  rights,  our  interests,  and  our  honor, 
as  well  as  the  peace  of  the  country  in  the  Union,  be  first  done. 
[Applause.] 

The  first  question  that  presents  itself  is,  shall  the  people  of  the 
South  secede  from  the  Union  in  consequence  of  the  election  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  ?  My  coun 
trymen,  I  tell  you  frankty,  candidly,  and  earnestly,  that  I  do  not 
think  that  they  ought.  In  my  judgment,  the  election  of  no  man, 
constitutionally  chosen  to  that  high  office,  is  sufficient  cause  for 
any  State  to  separate  from  the  Union.  It  ought  to  stand  by  and 
aid  still  in  maintaining  the  constitution  of  the  country.  To  make  a 
point  of  resistance  to  the  government,  to  withdraw  from  it  because 
a  man  has  been  constitutionally  elected,  puts  us  in  the  wrong. 
We  are  pledged  to  maintain  the  constitution.  Many  of  us  have 
sworn  to  support  it.  Can  we,  therefore,  for  the  mere  election  of  a 
man  to  the  presidency,  and  that,  too,  in  accordance  with  the  pre 
scribed  forms  of  the  constitution,  make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the 
government,  without  becoming  the  breakers  of  that  sacred  instru 
ment  ourselves,  b}r  withdrawing  ourselves  from  it  ?  Would  we 
not  be  in  the  wrong?  Whatever  fate  is  to  befall  this  country, 
let  it  never  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  people  of  the  South,  and 
especially  to  the  people  of  Georgia,  that  we  were  untrue  to  our 
national  engagements.  Let  the  fault  and  the  wrong  rest  upon 
others.  If  all  our  hopes  are  to  be  blasted,  if  the  republic  is  to 
go  down,  let  us  be  found  to  the  last  moment  standing  on  the  deck 


SPEECH  AGAINST  SECESSION.  697 

with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  waving  over  our  heads. 
[Applause.]  Let  the  fanatics  of  the  North  break  the  constitu 
tion,  if  such  is  their  fell  purpose.  Let  the  responsibility  be  upon 
them.  I  shall  speak  presently  more  of  their  acts  ;  but  let  not  the 
South,  let  us  not  be  the  ones  to  commit  the  aggression.  We 
went  into  the  election  with  this  people.  The  result  was  different 
from  what  we  wished ;  but  the  election  has  been  constitutionally 
held.  Were  we  to  make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  government 
and  go  out  of  the  Union  on  that  account,  the  record  would  be 
made  up  hereafter  against  us. 

But  it  is  said  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  and  principles  are  against  the 
constitution,  and  that,  if  he  carries  them  out,  it  will  be  destruc 
tive  of  our  rights.  Let  us  not  anticipate  a  threatened  evil.  If 
he  violates  the  constitution,  then  will  come  our  time  to  act.  Do 
not  let  us  break  it  because,  forsooth,  he  may.  If  he  does,  that  is 
the  time  for  us  to  strike.  [Applause.]  I  think  it  would  be  inju 
dicious  and  unwise  to  do  this  sooner.  I  do  not  anticipate  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  will  do  any  thing  to  jeopard  our  safety  or  security, 
whatever  may  be  his  spirit  to  do  it ;  for  he  is  bound  by  the  con 
stitutional  checks  which  are  thrown  around  him,  which  at  this 
time  render  him  powerless  to  do  any  great  mischief.  This  shows 
the  wisdom  of  our  system.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
is  no  emperor,  no  dictator — he  is  clothed  with  no  absolute  power. 
He  can  do  nothing  unless  he  is  backed  by  power  in  Congress. 
The  House  of  Representatives  is  largely  in  a  majority  against 
him.  In  the  very  face  and  teeth  of  the  heavy  majority  which  he 
has  obtained  in  the  northern  States,  there  have  been  large  gains 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the  conservative  constitu 
tional  party  of  the  country,  which  here  I  will  call  the  national 
democratic  party,  because  that  is  the  cognomen  it  has  at  the 
North.  There  are  twelve  of  this  party  elected  from  New  York 
to  the  next  Congress,  I  believe.  In  the  present  House  there  are 
but  four,  I  think.  In  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Ohio,  and 
Indiana,  there  have  been  gains.  In  the  present  Congress,  there 
were  one  hundred  and.  thirteen  republicans,  when  it  takes  one 
hundred  and  seventeen  to  make  a  majority.  The  gains  in  the 
democratic  party  in  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Indiana,  and  other  States,  notwithstanding  its  distractions,  have 
been  enough  to  make  a  majority  of  near  thirty  in  the  next  House 
against  Mr.  Lincoln.  Even  in  Boston,  Mr.  Burlingame,  one  of 
the  noted  leaders  of  the  fanatics  of  that  section,  has  been  defeated, 
and  a  conservative  man  returned  in  his  stead.  Is  this  the  time, 
then,  to  apprehend  that  Mr.  Lincoln,  with  this  large  majority  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  against  him,  can  carry  out  any  of 
his  unconstitutional  principles  in  that  body  ? 

In  the  Senate  he  will  also  be  powerless.  There  will  be  a  ma 
jority  of  four  against  him.  .This,  after  the  loss  of  Bigler,  Fitch, 
and  others,  by  the  unfortunate  dissensions  of  the  national  demo 
cratic  party  in  their  States.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  appoint  an  offi- 


698  SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION. 

cer  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate — he  cannot  form  a  cabinet 
without  the  same  consent.  He  will  be  in  the  condition  of  George 
the  Third  (the  embodiment  of  toryism),  who  had  to  ask  the  whigs 
to  appoint-  his  ministers,  and  was  compelled  to  receive  a  cabinet 
utterly  opposed  to  his  views ;  and  so  Mr.  Lincoln  will  be  com 
pelled  to  ask  of  the  Senate  to  choose  for  him  a  cabinet,  if  the 
democracy  of  that  party  chose  to  put  him  on  such  terms.  He  will 
be  compelled  to  do  this,  or  let  the  government  stop,  if  the  na 
tional  democratic  men  (for  that  is  their  name  at  the  North),  the 
conservative  men  in  the  Senate,  should  so  determine.  Then  how 
can  Mr.  Lincoln  obtain  a  cabinet  which  would  aid  him,  or  allow 
him  to  violate  the  constitution?  Why  then,  I  say,  should  we 
disrupt  the  ties  of  this  Union  when  his  hands  are  tied — when  he 
can  do  nothing  against  us  ? 

I  have  heard  it  mooted  that  no  man  in  the  State  of  Georgia, 
who  is  true  to  her  interests,  could  hold  office  under  Mr.  Lincoln. 
But  I  ask  who  appoints  to  office  ?  Not  the  President  alone  ;  the 
Senate  has  to  concur.  No  man  can  be  appointed  without  the 
consent  of  the  Senate.  Should  any  man,  then,  refuse  to  hold 
office  that  was  given  him  by  a  democratic  Senate  ? 

Mr.  TOOMBS  interrupted,  and  said,  if  the  Senate  was  democratic, 
it  was  for  Breckin ridge. 

Well,  then,  continued  Mr.  STEPHENS,  I  apprehend  that  no  man 
could  be  justly  considered  untrue  to  the  interests  of  Georgia,  or 
incur  any  disgrace,  if  the  interests  of  Georgia  required  it,  to  hold 
an  office  which  a  Breckinridge  Senate  had  given  him,  even  though 
Mr.  Lincoln  should  be  President.  [Prolonged  applause,  mingled 
with  interruptions.] 

I  trust,  my  countrymen,  you  will  be  still  and  silent.  I  am  ad 
dressing  your  good  sense.  I  am  giving  you  my  views  in  a  calm 
and  dispassionate  manner,  and  if  any  of  you  differ  with  me,  you 
can  on  some  other  occasion  give  your  views,  as  I  am  doing  now, 
and  let  reason  and  true  patriotism  decide  between  us.  In  my 
judgment,  I  s&y,  under  such  circumstances,  there  would  be  no 
possible  disgrace  for  a  southern  man  to  hold  office.  No  man  will 
be  suffered  to  be  appointed,  I  have  no  doubt,  who  is  not  true  to 
the  constitution,  if  southern  senators  are  true  to  their  trusts,  as 
I  cannot  permit  myself  to  doubt  that  they  will  be. 

My  honorable  friend  who  addressed  you  last  night  (Mr. 
TOOMBS),  and  to  whom  I  listened  with  the  profoundest  attention, 
asks  if  we  would  submit  to  black  republican  rule  ?  I  say  to  you 
and  to  him,  as  a  Georgian,  I  never  would  submit  to  any  black 
republican  aggression  upon  our  constitutional  rights. 

I  will  never  consent  myself,  as  much  as  I  admire  this  Union, 
for  the  glories  of  the  past  or  the  blessings  of  the  present,  as  much 
as  it  has  done  for  civilization  ;  as  much  as  the  hopes  of  the  world 
hang  upon  it ;  I  would  never  submit  to  aggression  upon  my 
rights  to  maintain  it  longer;  and  if  they  cannot  be  maintained 
in  the  Union  standing  on  the  Georgia  platform,  where  I  huve 


SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION.  699 

stood  from  the  time  of  its  adoption,  I  would  he  in  favor  of  dis 
rupting  every  tie  which  binds  the  States  together.  I  will  have 
equality  for  Georgia,  and  for  the  citizens  of, Georgia,  in  this  Union, 
or  I  will  look  for  new  safeguards  elsewhere.  This  is  my  position. 
The  only  question  now  is,  can  this  be  secured  in  the  Union  ? 
That  is  what  I  am  counselling  with  3*011  to-night  about.  Can  it 
be  secured  ?  In  my  judgment,  it  may  be,  but  it  may  not  be  ;  but 
let  us  do  all  we  can,  so  that  in  the  future,  if  the  worst  comes,  it 
may  never  be  said  we  were  negligent  in  doing  our  duty  to  the 
last. 

My  countiTinen,  I  am  not  of  those  who  believe  this  Union  has 
been  a  curse  up  to  this  time.  True  men,  men  of  integrity,  enter 
tain  different  views  from  me  on  this  subject.  I  do  not  question 
their  right  to  do  so  ;  I  would  not  impugn  their  motives  in  so 
doing.  Nor  will  I  undertake  to  say  that  this  government  of  our 
fathers  is  perfect.  There  is  nothing  perfect  in  this  world  of 
human  origin ;  nothing  connected  with  human  nature,  from  man 
himself  to  any  of  his  works.  You  may  select  the  wisest  and  best 
men  for  your  judges,  and  yet  how  many  defects  are  there  in  the 
administration  of  justice  ?  You  may  select  the  wisest  and  best 
men  for  your  legislators,  and  yet  how  many  defects  are  apparent 
in  your  laws  ?  And  it  is  so  in  our  government.  But  that  this 
government  of  our  fathers,  with  all  its  defects,  comes  nearer  the 
objects  of  all  good  governments  than  any  other  on  the  face  of  the 
earth,  is  my  settled  conviction.  Contrast  it  now  with  any  on 
the  face  of  the  earth. 

England,  said  Mr.  TOOMBS. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  England,  my  friend  says.  Well,  that  is  the 
next  best,  I  grant ;  but  I  think  we  have  improved  upon  England. 
Statesmen  tried  their  apprentice  hand  on  the  government  of  Eng 
land,  and  then  ours  was  made.  Ours  sprung  from  that,  avoiding 
many  of  its  defects,  taking  most  of  the  good,  and  leaving  out 
many  of  its  errors,  and  from  the  whole  our  fathers  constructed 
and  built  up  this  model  republic — the  best  which  the  history  of  the 
world  gives  any  account  of.  Compare,  my  friends,  this  government 
with  that  of  France,  Spain,  Mexico,  the  South  American  repub 
lics,  Germany,  Ireland — (are  there  any  sons  of  that  down-trodden 
nation  here  to-night  ?) — Prussia ;  or  if  you  travel  further  east,  to 
Turkey  or  China.  Where  will  you  go,  following  the  sun  in  its 
circuit  round  our  globe,  to  find  a  government  that  better  protects 
the  liberties  of  its  people,  and  secures  to  them  the  blessings  we 
enjoy.  [Applause.]  I  think  that  one  of  the  evils  that  beset  us 
is  a  surfeit  of  liberty,  an  exuberance  of  the  priceless  blessings  for 
which  we  are  ungrateful.  We -listened  to  my  honorable  friend 
who  addressed  you  last  night  [Mr.  TOOMBS]  as  he  recounted  the 
evils  of  this  government.  The  first  was  the  fishing  bounties  paid 
mostly  to  the  sailors  of  New  England.  Our  friend  stated  that 
forty-eight  years  of  our  government  was  under  the  administration 
of  southern  Presidents.  Well,  these  fishing  bounties  began  under 


700  SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION. 

the  rule  of  a  southern  President,  I  believe.  No  one  of  them  during 
the  whole  forty-eight  years  ever  set  his  administration  against 
the  principle  or  policy  of  them.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether 
it  was  a  wise  policy  in  the  beginning ;  it  probably  was  not,  and  I 
have  nothing  to  say  in  its  defence.  But  the  reason  given  for  it 
was  to  encourage  our  young  men  to  go  to  sea,  and  learn  to  man 
age  ships.  We  had  at  the  time  but  a  small  navy.  It  was  thought 
best  to  encourage  a  class  of  our  people  to  become  acquainted 
with  seafaring  life ;  to  become  sailors,  to  man  our  naval  ships. 
It  requires  practice  to  walk  the  deck  of  a  ship,  to  pull  the  ropes, 
to  furl  the  sails,  to  go  aloft,  to  climb  the  mast;  and  it  was  thought 
by  offering  this  bounty,  a  nursery  might  be  formed  in  which  young 
men  would  become  perfected  in  these  arts,  and  it  applied  to  one  sec 
tion  of  the  country  as  well  as  to  any  other.  The  result  of  this  was, 
that  in  the  war  of  1812,  our  sailors,  many  of  whom  came  from  this 
nursery,  were  equal  to  any  that  England  brought  against  us.  At  any 
rate,  no  small  part  of  the  glories  of  that  war  were  gained  by  the  vete 
ran  tars  of  America,  and  the  object  of  these  bounties  was  to  fos 
ter  that  branch  of  the  national  defence.  My  opinion  is,  that  what 
ever  may  have  been  the  reason  at  first,  this  bounty  ought  to  be 
discontinued — the  reason  for  it  at  first  no  longer  exists.  A  bill 
for  this  object  did  pass  the  Senate  the  last  Congress  I  was  in,  to 
which  my  honorable  friend  contributed  greatly,  but  it  was  not 
reached  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  trust  that  he  will 
yet  see  that  he  may  with  honor  continue  his  connection  with  the 
government,  and  that  his  eloquence,  unrivalled  in  the  Senate,  may 
hereafter,  as  heretofore,  be  displayed  in  having  this  bounty,  so 
obnoxious  to  him,  repealed  and  wiped  off  from  the  statute  book. 

The  next  evil  that  my  friend  complained  of  was  the  tariff. 
Well,  let  us  look  at  that  for  a  moment.  About  the  time  I  com 
menced  noticing  public  matters,  this  question  was  agitating  the 
country  almost  as  fearfully  as  the  slave  question  now  is.  In  1832, 
when  I  was  in  college,  South  Carolina  was  ready  to  nullify  or 
secede  from  the  Union  on  this  account.  And  what  have  we  seen  ? 
The  tariff  no  longer  distracts  the  public  councils.  Reason  has 
triumphed  !  The  present  tariff  was  voted  for  by  Massachusetts 
and  South  Carolina.  The  lion  and  the  lamb  lay  down  together — 
every  man  in  the  Senate  and  House  from  Massachusetts  and 
South  Carolina,  I  think,  voted  for  it  as  did  my  honorable  friend 
himself.  And  if  it  be  true,  to  use  the  figure  of  speech  of  my 
honorable  friend,  that  every  man  in  the  North,  that  works  in  iron 
and  brass  and  wood,  has  his  muscle  strengthened  by  the  protec 
tion  of  the  government,  that  stimulant  was  given  by  his  vote,  and 
I  believe  every  other  southern  man.  So  we  ought  not  to  complain 
of  that. 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  That  tariff  lessened  the  duties. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Yes,  and  Massachusetts,  with  unanimity,  voted 
with  the  South  to  lessen  them,  and  they  were  made  just  as  low  as 
southern  men  asked  them  to  be,  and  those  are  the  rates  they  are 


SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION.  701 

now  at.  If  reason  and  argument  with  experience  produced  such 
changes  in  the  sentiments  of  Massachusetts  from  1832  to  1857, 
on  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  may  not  like  changes  be  effected  there 
by  the  same  means,  reason  and  argument,  and  appeals  to  patriot 
ism  on  the  present  vexed  question !  and  who  can  say  that  by 
1875  or  1890,  Massachusetts  may  not  vote  with  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  upon  all  those  questions  that  now  distract  the  country 
and  threaten  its  peace  and  existence  ?  I  believe  in  the  power  and 
efficiency  of  truth,  in  the  omnipotence  of  truth,  and  its  ultimate 
triumph  when  properly  wielded.  [Applause.] 

Another  matter  of  grievance  alluded  to  by  my  honorable  friend, 
was  the  navigation  laws.  This  policy  was  also  commenced  under 
the  administration  of  one  of  these  southern  Presidents,  who  ruled 
so  well,  and  has  been  continued  through  all  of  them  since.  The 
gentleman's  views  of  the  policy  of  these  laws  and  my  own  do  not 
disagree.  We  occupied  the  same  ground  in  relation  to  them  in 
Congress.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  defend  them  now.  But  it  is 
proper  to  state  some  matters  connected  with  their  origin. 

One  of  the  objects  was  to  build  up  a  commercial  American 
marine  by  giving  American  bottoms  the  exclusive  carrying  trade 
between  our  own  ports.  This  is  a  great  arm  of  national  power. 
This  object  was  accomplished.  We  have  now  an  amount  of  ship 
ping  not  only  coast-wise  but  to  foreign  countries  which  puts  us  in 
the  front  ranks  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  England  can  no 
longer  be  styled  the  mistress  of  the  seas.  What  American  is  not 
proud  of  the  result  ?  Whether  those  laws  should  be  continued  is 
another  question.  But  one  thing  is  certain,  no  President,  northern 
or  southern,  has  ever  yet  recommended  their  repeal.  And  my 
friend's  effort  to  get  them  repealed  has  met  with  but  little  favor 
North  or  South. 

These  then  were  the  three  grievances  or  grounds  of  complaint 
against  the  general  system  of  our  government  and  its  workings ; 
I  mean  the  administration  of  the  Federal  government.  As  to  the 
acts  of  several  of  the  States,  I  shall  speak  presently,  but  these 
three  we.re  the  main  ones  urged  against  the  common  head.  Now 
suppose  it  be  admitted  that  all  of  these  are  evils  in  the  system ; 
do  they  over  balance  and  outweigh  the  advantages  and  great  good 
which  this  same  government  affords  in  a  thousand  innumerable 
ways  that  cannot  be  estimated  ?  Have  we  not  at  the  South  as 
well  as  the  North,  grown  great,  prosperous  and  happy  under  its 
operation  ?  Has  any  part  of  the  world  ever  shown  such  rapid 
progress  in  the  development  of  wealth,  and  all  the  material 
resources  of  national  power  and  greatness,  as  the  southern  States 
have  under  the  general  government,  notwithstanding  all  its 
defects  ? 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  In  spite  of  it. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  My  honorable  friend  says  we  have,  in  spite  of 
the  general  government ;  that  without  it  I  suppose  he  thinks  we 
might  have  done  as  well  or  perhaps  better  than  we  have  done. 


702  SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION". 

This  grand  result  is  in  spite  of  the  government?  That  may  be, 
and  it  may  not  be,  but  the  great  fact  that  we  have  grown  great 
and  powerful  under  the  government  as  it  exists  is  admitted. 
Thereis  no  conjecture  or  speculation  about  that;  it  stands  out 
bold,  high  and  prominent  like  your  Stone  Mountain,  to  which  the 
gentleman  alluded  in  illustrating  home  facts  in  his  record — this 
great  fact  of  our  unrivalled  prosperity  in  the  Union  as  it  is  ad 
mitted — whether  all  this  is  in  spite  of  the  government — whether 
we  of  the  South  would  have  been  better  off  without  the  govern 
ment  is,  to  say  the  least,  problematical.  On  the  one  side  we  can 
only  put  the  fact  against  speculation  and  conjecture  on  the  other. 
But  even  as  a  question  of  speculation  I  differ  from  my  distin 
guished  friend.  What  we  would  have  lost  in  border  wars  with 
out  the  Union,  or  what  we  have  gained  simply  by  the  peace  it 
has  secured,  is  not  within  our  power  to  estimate.  Our  foreign 
trade,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  our  prosperity,  has  the  pro 
tection  of  the  navy,  which  drove  the  pirates  from  the  waters  near 
our  coast  where  they  had  been  buccaneering  for  centuries  before, 
and  might  have  been  still  had  it  not  been  for  the  American  navy 
under  the  command  of  such  a  spirit  as  Commodore  Porter.  ]STow 
that  the  coast  is  clear,  that  our  commerce  flows  freely,  outwardly, 
and  inwardly,  we  cannot  well  estimate  how  it  would  have  been 
under  other  circumstances.  The  influence  of  the  government  on 
us  is  like  that  of  the  atmosphere  around  us.  Its  benefits  are  so 
silent  and  unseen  that  they  are  seldom  thought  of  or  appreciated. 

We  seldom  think  of  the  single  element  of  oxygen  in  the  air 
we  breathe,  and  yet  let  this  simple  unseen  and  unfelt  agent  be 
withdrawn,  this  life-giving  element  be  taken  away  from  this  all- 
pervading  fluid  around  us,  and  what  instant  and  appalling 
changes  would  take  place  in  all  organic  creation ! 

It  may  be  that  we  are  all  that  we  are  in  "  spite  of  the  general 
government,"  but  it  may  be  that  without  it  we  should  have  been 
far  different  from  what  we  are  now.  It  is  true  there  is  no  equal 
part  of  the  earth  with  natural  resources  superior,  perhaps,  to 
ours.  That  portion  of  this  country  known  as  the  southern  States, 
stretching  from  the  Chesapeake  to  the  Kio  Grande,  is  fully  equal 
to  the  picture  drawn  by  the  honorable  and  eloquent  senator  last 
night,  in  all  natural  capacities.  But  how  many  ages,  centuries, 
passed  before  these  capacities  were  developed,  to  reach  this  ad 
vanced  stage  of  civilization  ?  There,  these  same  hills,  rich  in 
ore,  same  rivers,  same  valleys  and  plains,  are  as  they  have  been 
since  they  came  from  the  hand  of  the  Creator.  Uneducated  and 
uncivilized  man  roamed  over  them,  for  how  long,  no  history  in 
forms  us. 

It  was  only  under  our  institutions  that  they  could  be  de 
veloped.  Their  development  is  the  result  of  the  enterprise  of 
our  people  under  operations  of  the  government  and  institutions 
under  which  we  have  lived.  Even  our  people,  without  these, 
never  would  have  done  it.  The  organization  of  society  has  much 


SPEECH  AGAINST  SECESSION".  703 

to  do  with  the  development  of  the  natural  resources  of  any 
country  or  any  land.  The  institutions  of  a  people,  political  and 
moral,  are  the  matrix  in  which  the  germ  of  their  organic  struc 
ture  quickens  into  life,  takes  root,  and  develops  in  form,  na 
ture,  and  character.  Our  institutions  constitute  the  basis,  the 
matrix,  from  which  spring  all  our  characteristics  of  development 
and  greatness.  Look  at  Greece !  There  is  the  same  fertile  soil, 
the  same  blue  sky,  the  same  inlets  and  harbors,  the  same  JGgean, 
the  same  Olympus — there  is  the  same  land  where  Homer  sung, 
where  Pericles  spoke — it  is  in  nature  the  same  old  Greece ;  but 
it  is  living  Greece  no  more.  [Applause.] 

Descendants  of  the  same  people  inhabit  the  country  ;  yet  what 
is  the  reason  of  this  mighty  difference  ?  In  the  midst  of  present 
degradation,  we  see  the  glorious  fragments  of  ancient  works  of 
art — temples  with  ornaments  arid  inscriptions  that  excite  wronder 
and  admiration,  the  remains  of  a  once  high  order  of  civilization, 
which  have  outlived  the  language  they  spoke.  Upon  them  all, 
Ichabod  is  written — their  glory  has  departed.  Why  is  this  so? 
I  answer,  their  institutions  have  been  destroyed.  These  were 
but  the  fruits  of  their  forms  of  government,  the  matrix  from 
which  their  grand  development  sprung ;  and  when  once  the  in 
stitutions  of  our  people  shall  have  been  destroyed,  there  is  no 
earthly  power  that  can  bring  back  the  Promethean  spark  to  kindle 
them  here  again,  any  more  than  in  that  ancient  land  of  eloquence, 
poetry,  and  song.  [Applause.]  The  same  may  be  said  of  Italy. 
Where  is  Rome,  once  the  mistress  of  the  wrorld  ?  There  are  the 
same  seven  hills  now,  the  same  soil,  the  same  natural  resources ; 
nature  is  the  same ;  but  what  a  ruin  of  human  greatness  meets 
the  eye  of  the  traveller  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
that  most  down-trodden  land !  Why  have  not  the  people  of  that 
heaven-favored  clime  the  spirit  that  animated  their  fathers  ? 
Why  this  sad  difference  ?  It  is  the  destruction  of  her  institu 
tions  that  has  caused  it.  And,  my  countrymen,  if  we  shall  in 
an  evil  hour  rashly  pull  down  and  destroy  those  institutions, 
which  the  patriotic  hand  of  our  fathers  labored  so  long  and  so 
hard  to  build  up,  and  which  have  done  so  much  for  us  and  for 
the  world,  who  can  venture  the  prediction  that  similar  results 
will  not  ensue  ?  Let  us  avoid  them  if  we  can.  I  trust  the  spirit 
is  amongst  us  that  will  enable  us  to  do  it.  Let  us  not  rashly  try 
the  experiment  of  change,  of  pulling  down  and  destroying,  for, 
as  in  Greece  and  Italy,  and  the  South  American  republics,  and 
in  every  other  place,  whenever  our  liberty  is  once  lost,  it  may 
never  be  restored  to  us  again.  [Applause.] 

There  are  defects  in  our  government,  errors  in  our  administra 
tion,  and  short-comings  of  many  kinds,  but  in  spite  of  these 
defects  and  errors,  Georgia  has  grown  to  be  a  great  State.  Let 
us  pause  here  a  moment.  In  1850  there  was  a  great  crisis,  but 
not  so  fearful  as  this,  for  of  all  I  have  ever  passed  through,  this 


704:  SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION. 

is  the  most  perilous,  and  requires  to  be  met  with  the  greatest 
calmness  and  deliberation. 

There  were  many  amongst  us  in  1850  zealous  to  go  at  once  out 
of  the  Union — to  disrupt  every  tie  that  binds  us  together.  Now 
do  you  believe,  had  that  policy  been  carried  out  at  that  time,  we 
would  have  been  the  same  great  people  that  we  are  to-day  ?  It 
may  be  that  we  would,  but  have  you  any  assurance  of  that  fact  ? 
Would  we  have  made  the  same  advancement,  improvement,  and 
progress,  in  all  that  constitutes  material  wealth  and  prosperity 
that  we  have  ? 

I  notice  in  the  comptroller-general's  report  that  the  taxable 
property  of  Georgia  is  six  hundred  and  seventy  million  dollars, 
and  upwards — an  amount  not  far  from  double  what  it  was  in 
1850.  I  think  I  may  venture  to  say  that  for  the  last  ten  years 
the  material  wealth  of  the  people  of  Georgia  has  been  nearly  if 
not  quite  doubled.  The  same  may  be  said  of  our  advance  in 
education,  and  every  thing  that  marks  our  civilization.  Have 
we  any  assurance  that  had  we  regarded  the  earnest  but  misguided 
patriotic  advice,  as  I  think,  of  some  of  that  day,  and  disrupted 
the  ties  which  bind  us  to  the  Union,  we  would  have  advanced  as 
we  have  ?  I  think  not.  Well,  then,  let  us  be  careful  now  before 
we  attempt  any  rash  experiment  of  this  sort.  I  know  that  there 
are  friends  whose  patriotism  I  do  not  intend  to  question,  who 
think  this  Union  a  curse,  and  that  we  would  be  better  off  without 
it.  I  do  not  so  think ;  if  we  can  bring  about  a  correction  of 
these  evils  which  threaten — and  I  am  not  without  hope  that  this 
may  yet  be  done — this  appeal  to  go  out  with  all  the  promises 
for  good  that  accompany  it,  I  look  upon  as  a  great,  and  I  fear,  a 
fatal  temptation. 

When  I  look  around  and  see  our  prosperity  in  every  thing — 
agriculture,  commerce,  art,  science,  and  every  department  of 
progress,  physical,  mental,  and  moral — certainly,  in  the  face  of 
such  an  exhibition,  if  we  can,  without  the  loss  of  power,  or  any 
essential  right  or  interest,  remain  in  the  Union,  it  is  our  duty  to 
ourselves  and  to  posterity  to  do  so.  Let  us  not  unwisely  yield 
to  this  temptation.  Our  first  parents,  the  great  progenitors  of 
the  human  race,  wrere  not  without  a  like  temptation  when  in  the 
garden  of  Eden.  They  were  led  to  believe  that  their  condition 
would  be  bettered — that  their  eyes  would  be  opened — and  that 
they  would  become  as  gods.  They  in  an  evil  hour  yielded — in 
stead  of  becoming  gods,  the}''  only  saw  their  own  nakedness. 

I  look  upon  this  country  with  our  institutions  as  the  Eden  of 
the  world,  the  faradise  of  the  universe.  It  may  be  that  out  of 
it,  we  may  become  greater  and  more  prosperous,  but  I  am  candid 
and  sincere  in  telling  you  that  I  fear  if  we  yield  to  passion,  and 
without  sufficient  cause,  shall  take  that  step,  that  instead  of  be 
coming  greater  or  more  peaceful,  prosperous,  and  happy — instead 
of  becoming  gods,  we  will  become  demons,  and  at  no  distant  day 
commence  cutting  one  another's  throats.  This  is  niy  apprehen- 


SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION.  705 

sion.  Let  us,  therefore,  whatever  we  do,  meet  these  difficulties, 
great  as  they  are,  like  wise  and  sensible  men,  and  consider  them 
in  the  light  of  all  the  consequences  which  may  attend  our  action. 
Let  us  see  first,  clearly,  where  the  path  of  duty  leads,  and  then 
we  may  not  fear  to  tread  therein. 

I  come  now  to  the  main  question  put  to  me,  and  on  which  my 
counsel  has  been  asked.  That  is,  what  the  present  legislature 
should  do  in  view  of  the  dangers  that  threaten  us,  and  the  wrongs 
that  have  been  done  us  by  several  of  our  confederate  States  in 
the  Union,  by  the  acts  of  their  legislatures  nullifying  the  fugitive 
slave  law,  and  in  direct  disregard  of  their  constitutional  obliga 
tions  ?  What  I  shall  say  will  not  be  in  the  spirit  of  dictation.  It  will 
be  simply  my  own  judgment  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  proceeds  from 
a  strong  conviction  that  according  to  it,  our  rights,  interest,  and 
honor — our  present  safety  and  future  security  can  be  maintained 
without  yet  looking  to  the  last  resort,  the  "ultima  ratio  regum." 
That  should  not  be  looked  to  until  all  else  fails.  That  may  come. 
On  this  point  I  am  hopeful,  but  not  sanguine.  But  let  us  use 
every  patriotic  effort  to  prevent  it  while  there  is  ground  for  hope. 

If  any  view  that  I  may  present,  in  your  judgment,  be  incon 
sistent  with  the  best  interest  of  Georgia,  I  ask  you  as  patriots 
not  to  regard  it.  After  hearing  me  and  others  whom  you  have 
advised  with,  act  in  the  premises  according  to  your  own  convic 
tion  of  duty  as  patriots.  I  speak  now  particularly  to  the  members 
of  the  legislature  present.  There  are,  as  I  have  said,  great  dan 
gers  ahead.  Great  dangers  may  come  from  the  election  1  have 
spoken  of  If  the  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  republican  asso 
ciates  shall  be  carried  out,  or  attempted  to  be  carried  out,  no 
man  in  Georgia  will  be  more  willing  or  ready  than  myself  to  de 
fend  our  rights,  interest,  and  honor,  at  every  hazard  and  to  the 
last  extremity.  [Applause.]  What  is  this  policy  ?  It  is,  in  the 
first  place,  to  exclude  us,  by  an  act  of  Congress,  from  the  terri 
tories  with  our  slave  property.  He  is  for  using  the  power  of  the 
general  government  against  the  extension  of  our  institutions. 
Our  position  on  this  point  is,  and  ought  to  be,  at  all  hazards,  for 
perfect  equality  between  all  the  States  and  the  citizens  of  all  the 
States  in  the  territories,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  If  Congress  should  exercise  its  power  against  this,  then 
I  am  for  standing  where  Georgia  planted  herself  in  1850.  These 
were  plain  propositions  which  were  then  laid  down  in  her  cele 
brated  platform,  as  sufficient  for  the  disruption  of  the  Union  if 
the  occasion  should  ever  come ;  on  these  Georgia  nas  declared 
that  she  will  go  out  of  the  Union ;  and  for  these  she  would  be 
justified  by  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  so  doing.  I  say  the  same  ; 
I  said  it  then;  I  say  it  now,  if  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  should  be 
carried  out.  I  have  told  you  that  I  do  not  think  his  bare  election 
sufficient  cause ;  but  if  his  policy  should  be  carried  out,  in  viola 
tion  of  any  of  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  Georgia  platform, 
that  would  be  such  an  act  of  aggression,  which  ought  to  be  met 
45 


706  SPEECH  AGAINST   SECESSION. 

as  therein  provided  for.  If  his  policy  shall  be  carried  out  in  re 
pealing  or  modifying  the  fugitive  slave  law  so  as  to  weaken  its 
efficacy,  Georgia  has  declared  that  she  will,  in  the  last  resort, 
disrupt  the  ties  of  the  Union — and  I  say  so  too.  I  stand  upon 
the  Georgia  platform,  and  upon  every  plank  in  it ;  and  if  these 
aggressions  therein  provided  for  take  place,  I  say  to  you  and 
to  the  people  of  Georgia,  be  ready  for  the  assault  when  it  comes  ; 
keep  your  powder  dry,  and  let  your  assailants  then  have  lead,  if 
need  be.  [Applause.]  I  would  wait  for  an  act  of  aggression. 
This  is  my  position. 

Now,  upon  another  point,  and  that  the  most  difficult,  and  de 
serving  your  most  serious  consideration,  I  will  speak.  That  is 
the  course  which  this  State  should  pursue  toward  these  northern 
States  which,  by  their  legislative  acts,  have  attempted  to  nullify 
the  fugitive  slave  law.  I  know  that  in  some  of  these  States  their 
acts,  pretended  to  be  based  upon  the  principles  set  forth  in  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of 
Prigg  against  Pennsylvania ;  that  decision  did  proclaim  the  doc 
trine  that  the  State  officers  are  not  bound  to  carry  out  the  pro 
visions  of  a  law  of  Congress,  that  the  federal  government  cannot 
impose  duties  upon  State  officials — that  they  must  execute  their 
own  laws  by  their  own  officers.  And  this  may  be  true.  But  still 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  States  to  deliver  fugitive  slaves,  as  well  as 
the  duty  of  the  general  government  to  see  that  it  is  done. 

Northern  States,  on  entering  into  the  federal  compact,  pledged 
themselves  to  surrender  such  fugitives ;  and  it  is  in  disregard  of 
their  constitutional  obligations  that  they  have  passed  laws  which 
even  tend  to  hinder  or  inhibit  the  fulfilment  of  that  obligation. 
They  have  violated  their  plighted  faith.  What  ought  we  to  do 
in  view  of  this?  That  is  the  question.  What  is  to  be  done  ?  By 
the  law  of  nations  you  would  have  a  right  to  demand  the  carrying 
out  of  this  article  of  agreement,  and  I  do  not  see  that  it  should 
be  otherwise  with  respect  to  the  States  of  this  Union ;  and  in 
case  it  be  not  done,  we  would,  by  these  principles,  have  the  right 
to  commit  acts  of  reprisal  on  these  faithless  governments,  and 
seize  upon  their  property,  or  that  of  their  citizens,  wherever 
found.  The  States  of  this  Union  stand  upon  the  same  footing 
with  foreign  nations  in  this  respect.  But  by  the  law  of  nations 
we  are  equally  bound,  before  proceeding  to  violent  measures,  to 
set  forth  our  grievances  before  the  offending  government,  to  give 
them  an  opportunity  to  redress  the  wrong.  Has  our  State  yet 
done  this  ?  T  think  not. 

Suppose  it  were  Great  Britain  that  had  violated  some  compact 
of  agreement  with  the  general  government — what  would  be  first 
done?  In  that  case  our  minister  would  be  directed  in  the  first 
instance  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  that  government, 
or  a  commissioner  be  sent  to  that  country  to  open  negotiations 
with  her,  ask  for  redress,  and  it  would  only  be  after  argument 
and  reason  had  been  exhausted  in  vain  that  we  would  take  the 


SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION".  7()f 

last  resort  of  nations.  That  would  be  the  course  toward  a  foreign 
government,  and  toward  a  member  of  this  confederacy  I  would 
recommend  the  same  course.  Let  us  not,  therefore,  act  hastily 
or  ill-temperedly  in  this  matter.  Let  your  committee  on  the  state 
of  the  republic  make  out  a  bill  of  grievances ;  let  it  be  sent  by 
the  governor  to  those  faithless  States  ;  and  if  reason  and  argu 
ment  shall  be  tried  in  vain — if  all  shall  fail  to  induce  them  to  re 
turn  to  their  constitutional  obligations,  I  would  be  for  retaliatory 
measures,  such  as  the  governor  has  suggested  to  you.  This -mode 
of  resistance  in  the  Union  is  in  our  power.  It  might  be  effectual, 
and  if  in  the  last  resort  we  would  be  justified  in  the  eyes  of  na 
tions,  not  only  in  separating  from  them,  but  by  using  force. 
[Some  one  said  the  argument  was  already  exhausted.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  continued : 

Some  friend  says  that  the  argument  is  already  exhausted.  No, 
my  friend,  it  is  not.  You  have  never  called  the  attention  of  the 
legislatures  of  those  States  to  this  subject  that  I  am  aware  of. 
Nothing  on  this  line  has  ever  been  done  before  this  year.  The 
attention  of  our  own  people  has  been  called  to  the  subject  lately. 

Now,  then,  my  recommendation  to  you  would  be  this.  In  view 
of  all  these  questions  of  difficulty,  let  a  convention  of  the  people 
of  Georgia  be  called,  to  which  they  may  be  all  referred.  Let  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  speak.  Some  think  that  the  election 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  cause  sufficient  to  dissolve  the  Union.  Some 
think  those  other  grievances  are  sufficient  to  dissolve  the  same, 
and  that  the  legislature  has  the  power  thus  to  act,  and  ought 
thus  to  act.  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  legislature 
is  not  the  proper  body  to  sever  our  federal  relations,  if  that 
necessit}7"  should  arise.  An  honorable  and  distinguished  gen 
tleman,  the  other  night  (Mr.  T.  R.  R.  COBB),  advised  you  to 
take  this  course — not  to  wait  to  hear  from  the  cross-roads  and 
groceries. 

I  say  to  you,  you  have  no  power  so  to  act.  You  must  refer  this 
question  to  the  people,  and  you  must  wait  to  hear  from  the  men 
at  the  cross-roads  and  even  the  groceries  ;  for  the  people  of  this 
country,  whether  at  the  cross-roads  or  groceries,  whether  in  cot 
tages  or  palaces,  are  all  equal,  and  they  are  the  sovereigns  in  this 
country.  Sovereignty  is  not  in  the  legislature.  We,  the  people, 
are  sovereigns.  I  am  one  of  them,  and  have  a  right  to  be  heard  ; 
and  so  has  every  other  citizen  of  the  State.  You  legislators — I 
speak  it  respectfully — are  but  our  servants.  You  are  the  servants 
of  the  people,  and  not  their  masters.  Power  resides  with  the 
people  in  this  country.  The  great  difference  between  our  country 
and  all  others,  such  as  France,  and  England  and  Ireland,  is,  that 
here  there  is  popular  sovereignty,  while  their  sovereignty  is  ex 
ercised  by  kings  and  favored  classes.  This  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty,  however  much  derided  lately,  is  the  foundation  of 
our  institutions.  Constitutions  are  but  the  channels  through 
which  the  popular  will  may  be  expressed.  Our  constitution  came 


708  SPEECH  AGAINST  SECESSION. 

from  the  people.  They  made  it,  and  they  alone  can  rightfully 
unmake  it. 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I  am  afraid  of  conventions. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  am  not  afraid  of  any  convention  legally  chosen 
by  the  people.  I  know  no  way  to  decide  great  questions  affecting 
fundamental  laws  except  by  representatives  of  the  people.  The 
constitution  of  the  United  States  was  made  by  the  representatives 
of  the  people  in  convention.  The  constitution  of  the  State  of 
Georgia  was  made  ~by  representatives  of  the  people  in  convention, 
chosen  at  the  ballot-box.  Let  us,  therefore,  now  have  a  conven 
tion  chosen  by  the  people.  But  do  not  let  the  question  which 
comes  before  the  people  be  put  to  them  in  the  language  of  my 
honorable  friend  who  addressed  you  last  night :  "  Will  you  sub 
mit  to  abolition  rule,  or  resist?" 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I  do  not  wish  the  people  to  be  cheated. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Now,  my  friends,  how  are  we  going  to  cheat 
the  people  by  calling  on  them  to  elect  delegates  to  a  convention 
to  decide  all  these  questions,  without  any  dictation  or  direction  ? 
Who  proposes  to  cheat  the  people  by  letting  them  speak  their 
own  untrammelled  views  in  the  choice  of  their  ablest  and  best  men, 
to  determine  upon  all  these  matters  involving  their  peace  ? 

I  think  the  proposition  of  my  honorable  friend  had  a  consider 
able  smack  of  unfairness,  not  to  say  cheat.  He  wishes  to  have 
no  convention,  but  for  the  legislature  to  submit  this  question  to 
the  people,  "submission  to  abolition  rule  or  resistance."  Now, 
who  in  Georgia  would  vote,  "submission  to  abolition  rule?" 
[Laughter.] 

Is  putting  such  a  question  to  the  people  to  vote  on,  a  fair  way 
of  getting  an  expression  of  the  popular  will  on  all  these  ques 
tions  ?  I  think  not.  Now,  who  in  Georgia  is  going  to  submit  to 
abolition  rule  ? 

Mr.  TOOMBS.     The  convention  will. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  my  friend,  Georgia  will  not  do  it.  The 
convention  will  not  recede  from  the  Georgia  platform.  Under 
that  there  can  be  no  abolition  rule  in  the  general  government.  I 
am  not  afraid  to  trust  the  people  in  convention  upon  this  and  all 
other  questions.  Besides,  the  legislature  was  not  elected  for  such 
a  purpose.  They  came  here  to  do  their  duty  as  legislators.  They 
have  sworn  to  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
They  did  not  come  here  to  disrupt  this  government.  I  am, 
therefore,  for  submitting  all  these  questions  to  a  convention  of 
the  people.  To  submit  these  questions  to  the  people,  whether 
they  would  submit  to  abolition  rule  or  resist,  and  then  for  the 
legislature  to  act  on  that  vote,  would  be  an  insult  to  the  people. 

But  how  will  it  be  under  this  arrangement  if  they  should  vote 
to  resist,  and  the  legislature  should  re-assemble  with  this  vote  as 
their  instructions?  Can  any  man  tell  what  sort  of  resistance 
will  be  meant  ?  One  man  would  say  secede  ;  another  pass  retalia 
tory  measures — these  are  measures  of  resistance  against  wrong 


SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION.  709 

legitimate  and  right — and  there  would  be  as  many  different 

ideas  as  there  are  members  on  this  floor.  Resistance  don't 
mean  secession — that  is  no  proper  sense  of  the  term  resistance. 
Believing  that  the  times  require  action,  1  am  for  presenting  the 
question  fairly  to  the  people,  for  calling  together  an  untrammelled 
convention,  and  presenting  all  the  questions  to  them  whether 
they  will  go  out  of  the  Union,  or  what  course  of  resistance  in  the 
Union  they  may  think  best,  and  then  let  the  legislature  act,  when 
the  people  in  their  majesty  are  heard,  and  I  tell  you  now,  what 
ever  that  convention  does,  I  hope  and  trust  our  people  will  abide 
by.  I  advise  the  calling  of  a  convention,  with  the  earnest  desire 
to  preserve  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  State.  I  should  dislike, 
above  all  things,  to  see  violent  measures  adopted,  or  a  disposition 
to  take  the  sword  in  hand,  by  individuals,  without  the  authority 
of  law. 

My  honorable  friend  said  last  night,  "  I  ask  you  to  give  me  the 
sword,  for  if  you  do  not  give  it  to  me,  as  God  lives,  I  will  take  it 
myself." 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I  will.  [Great  applause  on  the  other  side.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  honorable  friend 
feels  as  he  says.  It  is  only  his  excessive  ardor  that  makes  him 
use  such  an  expression  ;  but  this  will  pass  off  with  the  excitement 
of  the  hour.  When  the  people  in  their  majesty  shall  speak,  I 
have  no  doubt  he  will  bow  to  their  will,  whatever  it  may  be,  upon 
the  "  sober  second  thought."  [Applause.] 

Should  Georgia  determine  to  go  out  of  the  Union,  I  speak  for 
one,  though  my  views  might  not  agree  with  them,  whatever  the 
result  may  be,  I  shall  bow  to  the  will  of  her  people.  Their  cause 
is  my  cause,  and  their  destiny  is  my  destiny ;  and  I  trust  this 
will  be  the  ultimate  course  of  all.  The  greatest  curse  that  can 
befall  a  free  people,  is  civil  war. 

But,  as  I  said,  let  us  call  a  convention  of  the  people.  Let  all 
these  matters  be  submitted  to  it,  and  when  the  will  of  a  majority 
of  the  people  has  thus  been  expressed,  the  whole  State  will  pre 
sent  one  unanimous  voice  in  favor  of  whatever  may  be  demanded ; 
for  I  believe  in  the  power  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves, 
when  wisdom  prevails  and  passion  does  not  control  their  actions. 
Look  at  what  has  alread}^  been  done  Toy  them,  in  their  advance 
ment  in  all  that  ennobles  man !  There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  Look  abroad  from  one  extent  of  the  coun 
try  to  the  other  ;  contemplate  our  greatness.  We  are  now  among 
the  first  nations  of  the  earth.  '  Shall  it  be  said,  then,  that  our 
institutions,  founded  upon  the  principles  of  self-government,  are 
a  failure  ? 

Thus  far,  it  is  a  noble  example,  worthy  of  imitation.  The 
gentleman,  (MR.  COBB,)  the  other  night,  said  it  had  proven  a 
failure.  A  failure  in  what  ?  In  growth  ?  Look  at  our  expanse  in 
national  power.  Look  at  our  population  and  increase  in  all  that 
makes  a  people  great.  A  failure!  why  we  are  the  admira- 


710  SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION. 

tion  of  the  civilized  world,  and  present  the  brightest  hopes  of 
mankind. 

Some  of  our  public  men  have  failed  in  their  aspirations  ;  that 
is  true,  and  from  that  comes  a  great  part  of  our  troubles. 
[Prolonged  applause.] 

No,  there  is  no  failure  of  this  government  yet.  We  have  made 
great  advancement  under  the  constitution,  and  I  cannot  but  hope 
that  we  shall  advance  higher  still.  Let  us  be  true  to  our  trust. 

Now,  when  this  convention  assembles,  if  it  shall  be  called,  as  I 
hope  it  may,  I  would  say,  in  my  judgment,  without  dictation,  for 
I  am  conferring  with  you  freely  and  frankly,  and  it  is  thus  that 
I  give  my  views,  it  should  take  into  consideration  all  those  ques 
tions  which  distract  the  public  mind ;  should  view  all  the  grounds 
of  secession  so  far  as  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  concerned ; 
and  I  can  but  hope,  if  reason  is  unbiassed  by  passion,  that  they 
would  say  that  the  constitutional  election  of  no  man  is  a  suffi 
cient  cause  to  break  up  the  Union,  but  that  the  State  should  wait 
until  he,  at  least,  does  some  unconstitutional  act. 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  Commit  some  overt  act  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No,  I  did  not  say  that.  The  word  overt  is  a 
sort  of  technical  term  connected  with  treason,  which  has  come  to 
us  from  the  mother  country,  and  it  means  an  open  act  of  rebel 
lion.  I  do  not  see  how  Mr.  Lincoln  can  do  this  unless  he  should 
levy  war  upon  us.  I  do  not,  therefore,  use  the  word  overt.  I 
do  not  intend  to  wait  for  that.  But  I  use  the  word  unconstitu 
tional  act,  which  our  people  understand  much  better,  and  which 
expresses  just  what  I  mean.  But  as  long  as  he  conforms  to  the 
constitution,  he  should  be  left  to  exercise  the  duties  of  his  office. 

In  giving  this  advice,  I  am  but  sustaining  the  constitution  of 
my  country,  and  I  do  not  thereby  become  a  "Lincoln  aid  man" 
either,  [applause,]  but  a  constitutional  aid  man.  But  this  matter 
the  convention  can  determine. 

As  to  the  other  matter,  I  think  we  have  a  right  to  pass  retalia 
tory  measures,  provided  they  be  in  accordance  with  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  ;  and  I  think  they  can  be  made  so.  But 
whether  it  would  be  wise  for  this  legislature  to  do  this  now,  is  the 
question.  To  the  convention,  in  my  judgment,  this  matter  ought 
to  be  referred.  Before  making  reprisals,  we  should  exhaust  every 
means  of  bringing  about  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the  controversy. 
Thus  did  General  Jackson  in  the  case  of  the  French.  He  did  not 
recommend  reprisals  until  he  had  treated  with  France  and  got 
her  to  promise  to  make  indemnification,  and  it  was  only  on  her 
refusal  to  pay  the  money  which  she  had  promised  that  he  recom 
mended  reprisals.  It  was  after  negotiation  had  failed.  I  do 
think,  therefore,  that  it  would  be  best  before  going  to  extreme 
measures,  with  our  confederate  States,  to  make  the  presentation 
of  our  demands,  to  appeal  to  their  reason  and  judgment,  to  give 
us  our  rights.  Then  if  reason  should  not  triumph,  it  will  be  time 
eno"  igh  to  commit  reprisals,  and  we  should  be  justified  in  the  eyes 


SPEECH   AGAINST  SECESSION.  711 

of  a  civilized  world.  At  least,  let  these  offending  and  derelict 
States  know  what  your  grievances  are,  and  if  they  refuse,  as  I 
said,  to  give  us  our  rights  under  the  constitution,  I  should  be 
willing,  as  a  last  resort,  to  sever  the  ties  of  our  Union  with  them. 
[Applause.] 

My  own  opinion  is,  that  if  this  course  be  pursued,  and  they  are 
informed  of  the  consequences  of  refusal,  these  States  will  recede, 
will  repeal  their  nullifying  acts  ;  but  if  they  should  not,  then 
let  the  consequences  be  with  them,  and  the  responsibility  of  the 
consequences  rest  upon  them.  Another  thing  I  would  have  that 
convention  to  do.  Re-affirm  the  Georgia  platform  with  an  addi 
tional  plank  in  it.  Let  that  plank  be  the  fulfilment  of  these  con 
stitutional  obligations  on  the  part  of  those  States — their  repeal 
of  these  obnoxious  laws  as  the  condition  of  our  remaining  in  the 
Union.  Give  them  time  to  consider  it,  and  I  would  ask  all  States 
south  to  do  the  same  thing. 

I  am  for  exhausting  all  that  patriotism  demands  before  taking 
the  last  step.  I  would  invite,  therefore,  South  Carolina  to  a  con 
ference.  I  would  ask  the  same  of  all  the  other  southern  States, 
so  that  if  the  evil  has  got  beyond  our  control,  which  God  in  his 
mercy  grant  may  not  be  the  case,  we  may  not  be  divided  among 
ourselves  ;  [cheers,]  but  if  possible,  secure  the  united  co-opera 
tion  of  all  the  southern  States,  and  then,  in  the  face  of  the  civi 
lized  world,  we  may  justify  our  action,  and  with  the  wrong  all  on 
the  other  side,  we  can  appeal  to  the  God  of  battles,  if  it 
comes  to  that,  to  aid  us  in  our  cause.  fLoud  applause.]  But 
do  nothing  in  which  any  portion  of  our  people  may  charge  you 
with  rash  or  hasty  action.  It  is  certainly  a  matter  of  great 
importance  to  tear  this  government  asunder.  You  were  not  sent 
here  for  that  purpose.  I  would  wish  the  whole  South  to  be 
united,  if  this  is  to  be  done  ;  and  I  believe  if  we  pursue  the 
policy  which  I  have  vindicated,  this  can  be  effected. 

In  this  way  our  sister  southern  States  can  be  induced  to  act 
with  us;  and  I. have  but  little  doubt  that  the  States  of  New 
York,  and  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  and  the  other  western  States, 
will  compel  their  legislatures  to  recede  from  their  hostile  atti 
tude,  if  the  others  do  not.  Then  with  these  we  would  go  on 
without  New  England,  if  she  chose  to  stay  out. 

A  voice  in  the  assembly — "  We  will  kick  them  out." 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  No :  I  would  not  kick  them  out.  But  if  they 
chose  to  stay  out,  they  might.  I  think,  moreover,  that  these 
northern  States,  being  principally  engaged  in  manufactures, 
would  find  that  they  had  as  much  interest  in  the  Union  under 
the  constitution  as  we,  and  that  they  would  return  to  their  con 
stitutional  duty — this  would  be  my  hope.  If  they  should  not, 
and  if  the  middle  States,  and  western  States  do  not  join  us,  we 
should  at  least  have  an  undivided  South.  I  am,  as  you  clearly 
perceive,  for  maintaining  the  Union  as  it  is,  if  possible.  I  will 
exhaust  every  Tieans  thus  to  maintain  it  with  an  equality  in  it. 


712  SPEECH   AGAINST   SECESSION. 

My  position,  then,  in  conclusion,  is  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
honor,  the  rights,  the  equality,  the  security,  and  the  glory  of  my 
native  State  in  the  Union  if  possible ;  but  if  these  cannot  be 
maintained  in  the  Union,  then  I  am  for  their  maintenance,  at  all 
hazards,  out  of  it.  Next  to  the  honor  and  glory  of  Georgia,  the 
land  of  my  birth,  I  hold  the  honor  and  glory  of  our  common 
country.  In  Savannah  I  was  made  to  say  by  the  reporters,  who 
very  often  make  me  say  things  which  I  never  did,  that  I  was  first 
for  the  glory  of  the  whole  country,  and  next  for  that  of  Georgia. 
I  said  the  exact  reverse  of  this.  I  am  proud  of  her  history,  of 
her  present  standing.  I  am  proud  even  of  her  motto,  which  I 
would  have  duly  respected  at  the  present  time  by  all  her  sons — 
"  Wisdom,  Justice,  and  Moderation."  I  would  have  her  rights 
and  that  of  the  southern  States  maintained  now  upon  these 
principles.  Her  position  now  is  just  what  it  was  in  1850,  with 
respect  to  the  southern  States.  Her  platform  then  established 
was  subsequently  adopted  by  most,  if  not  all  the  other  southern 
States.  Now,  I  would  add  but  one  additional  plank  to  that  plat 
form,  which  I  have  stated,  and  one  which  time  has  shown  to  be 
necessary,  and  if  that  shall  likewise  be  adopted  in  substance  by 
all  the  southern  States,  all  may  yet  be  well.  But  if  all  this  fails, 
we  shall  at  least  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  we  have 
done  our  duty  and  all  that  patriotism  could  require. 

Mr.  Stephens  then  took  his  seat  amidst  great  applause. 

[On  loud  calls  for  Hon.  Henry  R.  Jackson,  that  gentleman  arose 
and  addressed  the  assembly  for  about  half  an  hour,  mainly  in 
opposition  to  some  of  the  positions  of  Mr.  Stephens.  He  was 
loudly  applauded  by  his  side.  When  he  got  through,  Mr.  Stephens 
again  rose  and  rejoined  in  substance  as  follows :] 

He  had  hoped  that  what  he  had  said  might  have  been  permitted 
to  be  considered  and  reflected  upon  by  those  to  whom  it  had 
been  addressed,  in  that  spirit  of  coolness  with  which  it  had  been 
delivered.  He  had  come  to  do  what  he  could  to  allay  excite 
ment,  and  to  let- the  dispassionate  judgment  of  the  members  of 
the  legislature  have  its  own  course.  One  or  two  points  only 
would  he  reply  to  the  gentleman  on. 

He  (Mr.  Jackson)  said  that  the  people  of  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome  had  lost  their  liberties  when  they  refused  to  fight  for  them. 
No,  my  countrymen,  said  Mr.  Stephens,  they  lost  their  liberties 
when  they  fell  a  prey  to  internal  dissensions  amongst  themselves. 
As  long  as  they  were  united,  as  long  as  Athens,  Corinth  and  Sparta, 
and  others  of  the  Amphyctionic  leagues  acted  harmoniously, 
they  were  more  than  a  match  for  any  enemy  that  ever  came 
against  them.  This,  Philip  of  Macedon  was  aware  of,  and  his 
policy  toward  them  was,  to  sow  strife  amongst  them.  His  motto 
was  to  divide  and  conquer.  Civil  strife  was  the  cause  of  Greece's 
overthrow;  so  it  was  with  Rome.  It  was  the  strife  between 
Marius  and  Sylia,  Pompey  and  Caesar,  and  the  civil  wars  that 
ensued,  that  caused  the  overthrow  of  that  great  republic.  It  was 


KULES  FOE  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS.   713 

when  there  were  parties  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  and  for  Cossar  and 
Pompey,  and  none  for  Rome,  and  those  parties  got  to  fighting 
amongst  themselves,  that  the  liberties  of  the  people  were  lost — 
that  their  constitution  was  destroyed.  It  had  been  so  in  France 
and  all  other  republics.  Mexico  is  in  this  sad  condition  now. 
The  blackest  page  in  the  history  of  the  world,  was  that  on  which 
were  recorded  the  butcheries  in  the  French  revolution,  committed 
by  each  faction  on  the  other  as  they  successively  triumphed  in 
turn.  Desmoulins,  Danton,  Robespiere,  all  went  to  the  guillotine. 
So  it  may  be  in  this  country.  Our  people  are  by  nature  no  better 
than  others.  When  the  human  passions  are  once  unbridled,  men 
become  little  better  than  fiends.  Liberty  was  never  the  fruit  of 
such  strife.  He  made  an  earnest  appeal  to  all  well-wishers  of  the 
peace  of  society — to  all  law  and  order  men  to  keep  cool,  and  not 
let  excitement  influence  their  sound  judgment. 

Some  allusion  was  made  to  Mr.  Breckinridge.  Mr.  Stephens 
said  that  he  had  seen  it  stated  that  he  was  coming  South  to 
address  the  people  in  behalf  of  preserving  the  Union,  if  it  could 
be  done.  He  did  not  know  whether  it  was  true  or  not. 

Mr.  TOOMBS  said  it  was  not  true. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not. 
Such  a  telegraphic  dispatch  had  been  published. 

Some  question  was  asked  about  Mr.  Douglas'  answer  to  the 
Norfolk  questions. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said  that  Mr.  Douglas  had  said  in  substance, 
that  the  bare  election  of  any  man  to  the  Presidency,  was  not  a 
cause  for  a  State  to  secede  ;  and  if  Mr.  Lincoln  should  be  elected, 
he  ought  to  be  inaugurated  and  sustained  in  all  his  constitutional 
acts.  But  if  he  violated  the  constitution,  then  he  would  aid  in 
hanging  him  higher  than  the  Virginians  hung  John  Brown.  Mr. 
Breckinridge  had  not  answered  those  questions,  but  Mr.  Stephens 
took  it  for  granted  that  he  agreed  with  Mr.  Douglas  ;  for  he  con 
sidered  in  his  Lexington  speech,  a  suspicion  of  his  entertaining 
disunion  sentiments,  an  imputation  on  his  character.  He  treated 
with  indignity  such  a  charge ;  and  his  supporters  in  Georgia  had 
certainly  run  him  upon  the  avowal  everywhere,  that  he  was  a 
Union  man.  Mr.  STEPHENS  again  resumed  his  seat,  in  the  midst 
of  great  applause. 


RULES  FOR  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  CONFEDER 
ATE  CONGRESS.  MONTGOMERY,  ALABAMA,  1861. 

MR.  STEPHENS,  from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  made  the  follow 
ing  report : 

I.  The  vote  upon  all  questions  in  this  Congress  except  as  here 
after*  otherwise  provided  shall  be  taken  by  States  ;  each  State 
shall  be  entitled  to  one  vote.  A  majority  of  all  the  States  rep  re* 


714    RULES  FOB  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS. 

sented  shall  be  necessary  to  carry  any  question.  The  delegates 
from  each  State  may  designate  the  member  to  cast  the  vote  for  their 
State,  and  upon  the  motion  of  airy  member  seconded  by  one  fifth 
of  the  members  present,  or  at  the  instance  of  any  one  State,  the 
yeas  and  nays  of  the  entire  body  shall  be  spread  upon  the 
journals  upon  any  question. 

II.  Any  number  of  members  from   a   majority  of  the  States 
now  represented  or  hereafter  to  be  represented  by  duly  accredited 
delegates  from  States  seceding  from  the  United  States  of  Ame 
rica,  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  transact  business. 

III.  The  President  having  taken  the  chair,  and  a  quorum  being 
present,  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day  shall  be  read,  and  any 
mistakes  in  the  entries  shall  upon  motion  then  be  corrected. 

IY.  No  member  shall  speak  to  another,  or  otherwise  interrupt 
the  business  of  the  Congress  while  the  journals  or  public  papers 
are  being  read,  or  when  any  member  is  speaking  in  debate. 

Y.  Every  member  when  he  speaks  shall  address  the  Chair  stand 
ing  in  his  place,  and  when  he  has  finished  shall  sit  down. 

VI.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  twice  in  any  one  debate 
on  the  same  question  and  on  the  same  day,  without  leave  of  a 
majority  of  the  members  present. 

VII.  When  two  or  more  members  rise  at  the  same  time,  the 
President  shall  name  the  person  to  speak,  but  in  all  cases  the 
member  who  shall  first  rise  and  address  the  chair  shall  speak 
first. 

VIII.  The  President  shall  preserve  order  and  decorum  ;  may 
speak  to  points  of  order  in  preference  to  other  members,  rising 
from  his  seat  for  that  purpose ;    and  shall  decide  questions  of 
order  subject  to  an  appeal  by  any  one  State  ;    and  may  call  any 
member  to  the  Chair  to  preside  temporarily  not  to  extend  beyond 
that  day's  session.     He  may  participate  in  the  debates. 

IX.  When  any  member  is  called  to  order  by  the  President  or 
any  member,  he  shall  sit  down,  and  every  question  of  order  shall 
be  decided  by  the  President  without  debate,  subject  to  an  appeal 
to  the  body. 

X.  If  any  member  be  called  to  order  by  another  member  for 
words  spoken,  the  exceptionable  words  spoken  shall  immediately 
be  taken  down  in  writing,  that  the  President  may  be  better  able  to 
judge  the  matter. 

XI.  No  member  shall  in  debate  use  any  language  reflecting  in 
juriously  upon  the  character,  motives,  honor  or  integrity  of  any 
other  member. 

XII.  No  motion  shall  be  debated  until  the  same  shall  receive  a 
second  ;  and  when  a  motion  shall  be  made  and  seconded,  it  shall 
be 'reduced  to  writing,  if  desired  by  the  President  or  any  member, 
delivered  in  at   the   table   and   read,  before   the  same   shall  be 
debated. 

XIII.  Any  motion  or  proposition  may  be  withdrawn  by  the 
mover  at  any  time  before  a  decision,  amendment,  or  other  action 


RULES  FOR  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS.   715 

of  the  body  upon  it,  except  a  motion  to  reconsider,  which  shall 
not  be  withdrawn  without  leave  of  the  body. 

XIY.  When  a  question  has  been  once  made  and  carried  in  the 
affirmative  or  negative,  a  motion  to  reconsider  shall  be  entertained 
at  the  instance  of  any  State,  if  made  on  the  same  day  on  which 
the  vote  was  taken,  or  within  the  two  next  days  of  actual  session. 
When  a  motion  to  reconsider  shall  be  made,  its  consideration 
shall  take  precedence  of  the  regular  order  of  business,  unless  a 
majority  of  the  members  present  shall  fix  some  other  time. 

XV.  When  a  question  is  under  debate,  no  motion  (except  one 
to  reconsider  some  other  question  passed  upon)  shall  be  received 
but  to  adjourn,  to  lie  on  the  table,  to  postpone  indefinitely,  to 
postpone  to  a  da}r  certain,  to  commit  or  amend,  which  several 
motions  shall  have  precedence  in  the  order  they  stand  arranged, 
and  the  motion  to  adjourn  shall  always  be  in  order,  and  decided 
without  debate. 

XVI.  If  the  question  for  decision  contain  several  parts,  any 
member  may  have  the  same  divided,  but  on  a  motion  to  strike 
out  and  insert,  it  shall  not  be  in  order  to  move  for  a  division  of 
the  question ;    but  the  rejection  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  and 
insert  one  proposition  shall  not  prevent  a  motion  to  strike  out 
and  insert  a  different  proposition,  nor  prevent  a  subsequent  pro 
position  simply  to  strike  out,  nor  shall  the  rejection  of  a  motion 
simply  to  strike  out,  prevent  a  subsequent  motion  to  strike  out 
and  insert. 

XVII.  In  filling  up  blanks  the  largest  sum  aud  longest  time 
shall  be  first  put. 

XVIII.  The  unfinished  business  in  which  the  Congress  may  be 
engaged  on  adjournment  shall  be  the  first  business  in  order  on 
the  next  day's  sitting. 

XIX.  After  the  journal  is  read,  and  the  unfinished  business,  if 
any,  of  the  previous  day's  sitting  is  disposed  of,  the  regular  order 
of  business  shall  be  as  follows  : 

1.  The  call  of  the  States,  alphabetically,  for  memorials,  or  any 
matter,  measure,  resolution,  or  proposition  which  any  member 
may  desire  to  bring  before  the  Congress. 

2.  The  call  of  committees    for  reports — the  call  of  the  com 
mittees  to  be   made   in   the    order   of  their   appointment — such 
reports  of  committees  as  may  not  be  otherwise  disposed  of  when 
made,  shall  be  numbered  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  presented 
and  be  placed  in  that  order  on  the  calendar  of  the  regular  orders 
of  the  day. 

3.  The  calendar,  or  the  regular  orders  of  the  day  shall  then 
be  taken  up,  and  every  resolution,  proposition,  or  measure,  shall 
be  disposed  of  in  the  order  in  which  it  there  stands.     No  special 
order  shall  be  made  against   this   rule,  except   by  a   vote   of  a 
majority  of  the  States,    and    such   majority  may,    at    any   time, 
change  the  order  of  business. 

XX.  Every  resolution  or  measure  submitted  for  the  action  of 


716   KCJLES  FOE  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS. 

the  Congress  shall  receive  three  readings  previous  to  its  being 
passed;  the  President  shall  give  notice  at  each  reading  whether 
it  be  the  first,  second,  or  third  reading.  No  resolution  or 
measure  shall  be  committed  or  amended  until  it  shall  have  been 
twice  read,  after  which  it  may  be  subject  to  motion  to  amend  or 
to  refer  to  a  committee.  And  all  such  matters  on  second  read 
ing  shall  first  be  considered  by  the  Congress  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  the  Congress  were  in  Committee  of  the  Whole ;  the  final 
question  on  the  second  reading  of  any  matter  not  referred  to  a 
committee,  shall  be  "  whether  it  shall  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time,"  and  no  amendment  shall  be  received  after  the  en 
grossment  for  a  third  reading  has  been  ordered.  But  it  shall  at 
all  times  be  in  order  before  the  final  passage  or  action  on  any 
matter,  to  move  its  commitment,  and  should  such  commitment 
take  place,  and  any  amendment  be  reported  by  the  committee, 
the  whole  shall  be  again  read  a  second  time  and  considered  as  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  then  the  aforesaid  question  shall  be 
again  put. 

XXI.  After  any  matter  is  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and  it  has 
been  read  a  third  time  the  question  shall  be,  shall  the  resolution 
(or  the  matter  whatever  it  may  be)  now  pass  ? 

XXII.  All  resolutions  or  other  matter  on  the  second  and  third 
reading  may  be  read  by  the  title,  unless  the  reading  of  the  whole 
shall  be  desired  by  a  majority  of  those  present. 

XXIII.  The  titles  of  resolutions  and  other  matters  submitted, 
and  such  parts   thereof  only  as   shall  be  affected   by  proposed 
amendments,  shall  be  inserted  on  the  journals. 

XXIV.  No  motion  for  the  previous  question  shall  be  enter 
tained:  but  upon  the  call  of  any  member  for  "The  Question,  "if 
seconded  by  a  majority  of  the  States  present,  the  vote  shall  be 
immediately  taken  on  the  pending  question,  whatever  it  may  be, 
without  further  debate. 

XXY.  A  motion  to  lay  any  amendment  on  the  table  prevailing, 
shall  carry  with  it  only  the  amendment,  and  not  the  original 
proposition  or  matter. 

XXVI.  Stenographers  and  reporters  for  the  press,  wishing  to 
take  down  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress,  may  be  admitted  by 
the  president,  who  shall  assign  such  places  to  them  on  the  floor, 
to  effect  their  object  as  shall  not  interfere  with  the  convenience 
of  the  members  when  in  open  session. 

XXVII.  On  motion,  made  and  seconded  by  another  member, 
to  close  the  doors  on  the  discussion  of  any  business,  which  may 
in  the  opinion  of  a  member  require  secrecy,  the  president  shall 
direct  the  doors  to  be  closed  and  the  gallery  to  be  cleared,  and 
during  the  discussion  of  such  question,  no  one  shall  be  permitted 
to  remain  upon  the  floor  but  the  members  of  the  body  and  its 
officers. 

XXVIII.  Any  officer  or  member  of  the  Congress,  convicted 
of  disclosing  any  matter  directed  by  the  body  to  be  held  in  con- 


SKETCH   OF   THE   CORNEK-STONE   SPEECH.  717 

fidence,  shall  be  liable,  if  an  officer,  to  dismissal  from  service,  and 
in  case  of  a  member,  to  suffer  expulsion  from  the  body. 

XXIX.  All  motions  to  print  extra  copies  of  any  bill,  report,  or 
other  document,  shall  be  referred  to  the  committee  on  printing. 

XXX.  All  propositions  affecting  our  foreign  relations,  or  look 
ing  to  the  public  defence,  shall  be  submitted  to  the   Congress 
while  in  secret  session. 

XXXI.  All  cases  that  may  arise  in  the  proceedings  of  this 
Congress,  not  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  rules,  shall  be  gov 
erned  by   the   general  principles  of  parliamentary  law  as  laid 
down  in  Jefferson's  Manual. 


SPEECH  DELIVERED  ON  THE  21sT  MARCH,  1861,  IN 
SAVANNAH,  KNOWN  AS  "THE  CORNER  STONE 
SPEECH,"  REPORTED  IN  THE  SAVANNAH  REPUB 
LICAN. 

At  half  past  seven  o'clock  on  Thursday  evening,  the  largest 
audience  ever  assembled  at  the  Athenaeum  was  in  the  house, 
waiting  most  impatiently  for  the  appearance  of  the  orator  of  the 
evening,  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens,  Vice-President  of  the  Confederate 
States  of  America.  The  committee,  with  invited  guests,  were 
seated  on  the  stage,  when,  at  the  appointed  hour,  the  Hon.  C.  C. 
Jones,  Mayor,  and  the  speaker,  entered,  and  were  greeted  by  the 
immense  assemblage  with  deafening  rounds  of  applause. 

The  Mayor  then,  in  a  few  pertinent  remarks,  introduced  Mr. 
Stephens,  stating  that  at  the  request  of  a  number/)f  the  members 
of  the  convention,  and  citizens  of  Savannah  and  the  State,  now 
here,  he  had  consented  to  address  them  upon  the  present  state 
of  public  affairs. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  rose  and  spoke  as  follows : 

Mr.  Mayor,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  and  Fellow- 
Citizens  : — For  this  reception  you  will  please  accept  my  most 
profound  and  sincere  thanks.  The  compliment  is  doubtless  in 
tended  as  much,  or  more,  perhaps,  in  honor  of  the  occasion,  and 
my  public  position,  in  connection  with  the  great  events  now 
crowding  upon  us,  than  to  me  personally  and  individually.  It 
is  however  none  the  less  appreciated  by  me  on  that  account.  We 
are  in  the  midst  of  one  of  the  greatest  epochs  in  our  history. 
The  last  ninety  days  will  mark  one  of  the  most  memorable  eras 
in  the  history  of  modern  civilization. 

[There  was  a  general  call  from  the  outside  of  the  building  for 
the  speaker  to  go  out,  that  there  were  more  outside  than  in.] 

The  Mayor  rose  and  requested  silence  at  the  doors,  that  Mr. 
Stephens'  health  would  not  permit  him  to  speak  in  the  open  air. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said  he  would  leave  it  to  the  audience  whether  he 


718  SKETCH    OF   THE   CORNER-STONE    SPEECH. 

should  proceed  indoors  or  out.  There  was  a  general  cry  indoors, 
as  the  ladies,  a  large  number  of  whom  were  present,  could  not 
liear  outside. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  said  that  the  accommodation  of  the  ladies  would 
determine  the  question,  and  he  would  proceed  where  he  was. 

[At  this  point  the  uproar  and  clamor  outside  was  greater  still 
for  the  speaker  to  go  out  on  the  steps.  This  was  quieted  }}y 
Col.  Lawton,  Col.  Freeman,  Judge  Jackson,  and  Mr.  J.  W.  Ow 
ens  going  out  and  stating  the  facts  of  the  case  to  the  dense  mass 
of  men,  women,  and  children  who  were  outside,  and  entertaining 
them  in  brief  speeches — Mr.  Stephens  all  this  while  quietly  sit 
ting  down  until  the  furor  subsided.] 

Mr.  STEPHENS  rose  and  said :  When  perfect  quiet  is  restored, 
I  shall  proceed.  I  cannot  speak  so  long  as  there  is  any  noise  or 
confusion.  I  shall  take  my  time — I  feel  quite  prepared  to  spend 
the  night  with  you  if  necessary.  [Loud  applause.]  I  very  much 
regret  that  every  one  who  desires  cannot  hear  what  I  have  to 
say.  Not  that  I  have  any  display  to  make,  or  any  thing  very 
entertaining  to  present,  but  such  views  as  I  have  to  give,  I  wish 
all,  not  only  in  this  city,  but  in  this  State,  and  throughout  our 
Confederate  Republic,  could  hear,  who  have  a  desire  to  hear 
them. 

I  was  remarking,  that  we  are  passing  through  one  of  the  great 
est  revolutions  in  the  annals  of  the  world.  Seven  States  have 
within  the  last  three  months  thrown  off  an  old  government  and 
formed  a  new.  This  revolution  has  been  signally  marked,  up  to 
this  time,  by  the  fact  of  its  having  been  accomplished  without 
the  loss  of  a  single  drop  of  blood.  [Applause.] 

This  new  constitution,  or  form  of  government,  constitutes 
the  subject  to  which  your  attention  will  be  partly  invited.  In 
reference  to  it,  I  make  this  first  general  remark.  It  amply  se 
cures  all  our  ancient  rights,  franchises,  and  liberties.  All  the 
great  principles  of  Magna  Charta  are  retained  in  it.  No  citizen 
is  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  but  by  the  judgment  of 
his  peers  under  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  great  principle  of 
religious  liberty,  which  was  the  honor  and  pride  of  the  old  con 
stitution,  is  still  maintained  and  secured.  All  the  essentials  of 
the  old  constitution,  which  have  endeared  it  to  the  hearts  of  the 
American  people,  have  been  preserved  and  perpetuated.  [Ap 
plause.]  Some  changes  have  been  made.  Of  these  I  shall  speak 
presently.  Some  of  these  I  should  have  preferred  not  to  have 
seen  made ;  but  these,  perhaps,  meet  the  cordial  approbation  of 
a  majority  of  this  audience,  if  not  an  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  Confederacy.  Of  them,  therefore,  I  will  not 
speak.  But  other  important  changes  do  meet  my  cordial  appro 
bation.  They  form  great  improvements  upon  the  old  constitu 
tion.  So,  taking  the  whole  new  constitution,  I  have  no  hesi 
tancy  in  giving  it  as  my  judgment  that  it  is  decidedly  better  than 
the  old.  [Applause.] 


SKETCH   OF    THE   CORNER-STONE   SPEECH.  719 

Allow  me  briefly  to  allude  to  some  of  these  improvements.  The 
question  of  building  up  class  interests,  or  fostering  one  branch 
of  industry  to  the  prejudice  of  another  under  the  exercise  of  the 
revenue  power,  which  gave  us  so  much  trouble  under  the  old  con 
stitution,  is  put  at  rest  forever  under  the  new.  We  allow  the 
imposition  of  no  duty  with  a  view  of  giving  advantage  to  one 
class  of  persons,  in  any  trade  or  business,  over  those  of  another. 
All,  under  our  system,  stand  upon  the  same  broad  principles  of 
perfect  equality.  Honest  labor  and  enterprise  are  left  free  and 
unrestricted  in  whatever  pursuit  they  may  be  engaged.  This 
subject  came  well  nigh  causing  a  rupture  of  the  old  Union,  under 
the  lead  of  the  gallant  Palmetto  State,  which  lies  on  our  border, 
in  1833.  This  old  thorn  of  the  tariff,  which  was  the  cause  of  so 
much  irritation  in  the  old  body  politic,  is  removed  forever  from 
the  new.  [Applause.]  f 

Again,  the  subject  of  internal  improvements,  under  the  power 
of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce,  is  put  at  rest  under  our  system. 
The  power  claimed  by  construction  under  the  old  constitution,  was 
at  least  a  doubtful  one — it  rested  solely  upon  construction.  We  of 
the  South,  generally  apart  from  considerations  of  constitutional 
principles,  opposed  its  exercise  upon  grounds  of  its  inexpediency 
and  injustice.  Notwithstanding  this  opposition,  millions  of  money, 
from  the  common  treasury  had  been  drawn  for  such  purposes. 
Our  opposition  sprang  from  no  hostility  to  commerce,  or  all  ne 
cessary  aids  for  facilitating  it.  With  us  it  was  simply  a  question, 
upon  whom  the  burden  should  fall.  In  Georgia,  for  instance,  we 
have  done  as  much  for  the  cause  of  internal  improvements  as  any 
other  portion  of  the  country  according  to  population  and  means. 
We  have  stretched  out  lines  of  railroads  from  the  seaboard  to  the 
mountains ;  dug  down  the  hills,  and  filled  up  the  valleys  at  a  cost 
of  not  less  than  twenty-five  millions  of  dollars.  All  this  was  done 
to  open  an  outlet  for  our  products  of  the  interior,  and  those  to  the 
west  of  us,  to  reach  the  marts  of  the  world.  No  State  was  in 
greater  need  of  such  facilities  than  Georgia,  but  we  did  not  ask 
that  these  works  should  be  made  by  appropriations  out  of  the 
common  treasu'ry.  The  cost  of  the  grading,  the  superstructure, 
and  equipments  of  our  roads,  was  borne  by  those  who  entered  on 
the  enterprise.  Nay,  more — not  only  the  cost  of  the  iron,  no 
small  item  in  the  aggregate  cost,  was  borne  in  the  same  way — but 
we  were  compelled  to  pay  into  the  common  treasury  several  mil 
lions  of  dollars  for  the  privilege  of  importing  the  iron,  after  the 
price  was  paid  for  it  abroad.  What  justice  was  there  in  taking 
this  money,  which  our  people  paid  into  the  common  treasury  on 
the  importation  of  our  iron,  and  applying  it  to  the  improvement 
of  rivers  and  harbors  elsewhere  ? 

The  true  principle  is  to  subject  the  commerce  of  every  locality, 
to  whatever  burdens  may  be  necessary  to  facilitate  it.  If  Charles 
ton  harbor  needs  improvement,  let  the  commerce  of  Charleston 
bear  the  burden.  If  the  mouth  of  the  Savannah  river  has 


720  SKETCH    OF   THE    CORNER-STONE   SPEECH. 

to  be  cleared  out,  let  the  sea-going  navigation  which  is  benefitted 
by  it,  bear  the  burden.  So  with  the  mouths  of  the  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  river.  Just  as  the  products  of  the  interior,  our  cotton, 
wheat,  corn,  and  other  articles,  have  to  bear  the  necessary  rates 
of  freight  over  our  railroads  to  reach  the  seas.  This  is  again  the 
broad  principle  of  perfect  equality  and  justice.  [Applause.] 
And  it  is  especially  set  forth  and  established  in  our  new  consti 
tution. 

Another  feature  to  which  I  will  allude,  is  that  the  new  consti 
tution  provides  that  cabinet  ministers  and  heads  of  departments 
may  have  the  privilege  of  seats  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives — may  have  the  right  to  participate  in 
the  debates  and  discussions  upon  the  various  subjects  of  adminis 
tration.  I  should  have  preferred  that  this  provision  should  have 
gone  further,  and  required  the  President  to  select  his  constitu 
tional  advisers  from  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 
That  would  have  conformed  entirely  to  the  practice  in  the  British 
Parliament,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  one  of  the  wisest  provisions 
in  the  British  constitution.  It  is  the  only  feature  that  saves  that 
government.  It  is  that  wrhich  gives  it  stability  in  its  facility  to 
change  its  administration.  Ours, -as  it  is,  is  a  great  approxima 
tion  to  the  right  principle. 

Under  the  old  constitution,  a  secretary  of  the  treasury  for  in 
stance,  had  no  opportunity,  save  by  his  annual  reports,  of  presenting 
any  scheme  or  plan  of  finance  or  other  matter.  He  had  no  oppor 
tunity  of  explaining,  expounding,  inforcing,  or  defending  his  views 
of  policy  ;  his  only  resort  was  through  the  medium  of  an  organ. 
In  the  British  parliament,  the  premier  brings  in  his  budget  and 
stands  before  the  nation  responsible  for  its  every  item.  If  it  is 
indefensible,  he  falls  before  the  attacks  upon  it,  as  he  ought  to. 
This  will  now  be  the  case  to  a  limited  extent  under  our  system. 
In  the  new  constitution,  provision  has  been  made  by  which 
our  heads  of  departments  can  speak  for  themselves  and  the 
administration,  in  behalf  of  its  entire  policy,  without  resorting  to 
the  indirect  and  highly  objectionable  medium  of  a  newspaper. 
It  is  to  be  greatly  hoped .  that  under  our  system  we  shall  never 
have  what  is  known  as  a  government  organ.  [Rapturous  ap 
plause.] 

[A  noise  again  arose  from  the  clamor  of  the  crowd  outside, 
who  wished  to  hear  Mr.  Stephens,  and  for  some  moments  inter 
rupted  him.  The  mayor  rose  and  called  on-  the  police  to  preserve 
order.  Quiet  being  restored,  Mr.  S.  proceeded.] 

Another  change  in  the  constitution  relates  to  the  length  of  the 
tenure  of  the  presidential  office.  In  the  new  constitution  it  is 
six  years  instead  of  four,  and  the  President  rendered  ineligible 
for  a  re-election.  This  is  certainly  a  decidedly  conservative 
change.  It  will  remove  from  the  incumbent  all  temptation  to 
use  his  office  or  exert  the  powers  confided  to  him  for  any  objects 
of  personal  ambition.  The  only  incentive  to  that  higher  ainbi- 


SKETCH   OF   THE   CORNER-STONE   SPEECH.  721 

tion  which  should  move  and  actuate  one  holding  such  high  trusts 
in  his  hands,  will  be  the  good  of  the  people,  the  advancement, 
prosperity,  happiness,  safety,  honor,  and  true  glory  of  the  con 
federacy.  [Applause.] 

But  not  to  be  tedious  in  enumerating  the  numerous  changes 
for  the  better,  allow  me  to  allude  to  one  other — though  last,  not 
least.  The  new  constitution  has  put  at  rest,  forever,  all  the 
agitating  questions  relating  to  our  peculiar  institution — African 
slavery  as  it  exists  amongst  us — the  proper  status  of  the  negro  in 
our  form  of  civilization.  This  was  the  immediate  cause  of  the 
late  rupture  and  present  revolution.  Jefferson  in  his  forecast, 
had  anticipated  this,  as  the  "  rock  upon  which  the  old  Union 
would  split."  He  was  right.  What  was  conjecture  with  him,  is 
now  a  realized  fact.  But  whether  he  fully  comprehended  the 
great  truth  upon  which  that  rock  stood  and  stands,  may  be 
doubted.  The  prevailing  ideas  entertained  by  him  and  most  of 
the  leading  statesmen  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  old  con 
stitution,  were  that  the  enslavement  of  the  African  was  in  vio 
lation  of  the  laws  of  nature ;  that  it  was  wrong  in  principle, 
socially,  morally,  and  politically.  It  was  an  evil  they  knew  not 
well  how  to  deal  with,  but  the  general  opinion  of  the  men  of  that 
day  was  that,  somehow  or  other  in  the  order  of  Providence,  the 
institution  would  be  evanescent  and  pass  away.  This  idea, 
though  not  incorporated  in  the  constitution,  was  the  prevailing 
idea  at  that  time.  The  constitution,  it  is  true,  secured  eveiy  essen 
tial  guarantee  to  the  institution  while  it  should  last,  and  hence  no 
argument  can  be  justly  urged  against  the  constitutional  guaran 
tees  thus  secured,  because  of  the  common  sentiment  of  the  day. 
Those  ideas,  however,  were  fundamentally  wrong.  They  rested 
upon  the  assumption  of  the  equality  of  races.  This  was  an  error. 
It  was  a  sandy  foundation,  and  the  government  built  upon  it  fell 
when  the  "  storm  came  and  the  wind  blew." 

Our  new  government  is  founded  upon  exactly  the  oppo 
site  idea  ;  its  foundations  are  laid,  its  corner-stone  rests  upon 
the  great  truth,  that  the  negro  is  not  equal  to  the  white  man  ; 
that  slavery — subordination  to  the  superior  race — is  his  natural 
and  normal  condition.  [Applause.] 

This,  our  new  government,  is  the  first,  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  based  upon  this  great  physical,  philosophical,  and  moral 
truth.  This  truth  has  been  slow  in  the  process  of  its  develop 
ment,  like  all  other  truths  in  the  various  departments  of  science. 
It  has  been  so  even  amongst  us.  Many  who  hear  me,  perhaps,  can 
recollect  well,  that  this  truth  was  not  generally  admitted,  even 
within  their  day.  The  errors  of  the  past  generation  still  clung 
to  many  as  late  as  twenty  years  ago.  Those  at  the  North,  who 
still  cling  to  these  errors,  with  a  zeal  above  knowledge,  we  justly 
denominate  fanatics.  All  fanaticism  springs  from  an  aberration 
of  the  mind — from  a  defect  in  reasoning.  It.  is  a  species  of  insan 
ity.  One  of  the  most  striking  characteristics  of  insanity,  in 
46 


722  SKETCH   OF   THE   COKNER-STONE   SPEECH. 

many  instances,  is  forming  correct  conclusions  from  fancied  or 
erroneous  premises  ;  so  with  the  anti-slavery  fanatics  ;  their  con 
clusions  are  right  if  their  premises  were.  They  assume  that  the 
negro  is  equal,  and  hence  conclude  that  he  is  entitled  to  equal 
privileges  and  rights  with  the  white  man.  If  their  premises  were 
correct,  their  conclusions  would  be  logical  and  just — but  their 
premise  being  wrong,  their  whole  argument  fails.  I  recollect 
once  of  having  heard  a  gentleman  from  one  of  the  northern  States, 
of  great  power  and  ability,  announce  in  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives,  with  imposing  effect,  that  we  of  the  South  would  be 
compelled,  ultimately,  to  yield  upon  this  subject  of  slavery,  that 
it  was  as  impossible  to  war  successfully  against  a  principle  in 
politics,  as  it  was  in  physics  or  mechanics.  That  the  principle 
would  ultimately  prevail.  That  we,  in  maintaining  slavery  as  it 
exists  with  us,  were  warring  against  a  principle,  a  principle 
founded  in  nature,  the  principle  of  the  equality  of  men.  The 
reply  I  made  to  him  was,  that  upon  his  own  grounds,  we  should, 
ultimately,  succeed,  and  that  he  and  his  associates,  in  this  cru 
sade  against  our  institutions,  would  ultimately  fail.  The  truth 
announced,  that  it  was  as  impossible  to  war  successfuly  against  a 
principle  in  politics  as  it  was  in  physics  and  mechanics,  I  ad 
mitted  ;  but  told  him  that  it  was  he,  and  those  acting  with  him, 
who  were  warring  against  a  principle.  They  were  attempting  to 
make  things  equal  which  the  Creator  had  made  unequal. 

In  the  conflict  thus  far,  success  has  been  on  our  side,  complete 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  Confederate  States. 
It  is  upon  this,  as  I  have  stated,  our  social  fabric  is  firmly 
planted ;  and  I  cannot  permit  myself  to  doubt  the  ultimate  suc 
cess  of  a  full  recognition  of  this  principle  throughout  the  civil 
ized  and  enlightened  world. 

As  I  have  stated,  the  truth  of  this  principle  may  be  slow  in 
development,  as  all  truths  are  and  ever  have  been,  in  the  various 
branches  of  science.  It  was  so  with  the  principles  announced  by 
Galileo— it  was  so  with  Adam  Smith  and  his  principles  of  politi 
cal  economy.  It  was  so  with  Harvey,  and  his  theory  of  the  cir 
culation  of  the  blood.  It  is  stated  that  not  a  single  one  of  the 
medical  profession,  living  at  the  time  of  the  announcement  of  the 
truths  made  by  him,  admitted  them.  Now,  they  are  universally 
acknowledged.  May  we  not,  therefore,  look  with  confidence  to 
the  ultimate  universal  acknowledgment  of  the  truths  upon  which 
our  system  rests  ?  It  is  the  first  government  ever  instituted 
upon  the  principles  in  strict  conformity  to  nature,  and  the  ordi 
nation  of  Providence,  in  furnishing  the  materials  of  human 
society.  Manjr  governments  have  been  founded  upon  the  prin 
ciple  of  the  subordination  and  serfdom  of  certain  classes  of  the 
same  race ;  such  were  and  are  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature. 
Our  system  commits  no  such  violation  of  nature's  laws.  With 
us,  all  of  the  white  race,  however  high  or  low,  rich  or  poor,  are 
equal  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  Not  so  with  the  negro.  Subordina 


SKETCH    OF    THE    CORNER-STOXE    SPEECH.  723 

tion  is  his  place.  He,  by  nature,  or  by  the  curse  against  Canaan,  is 
fitted  for  that  condition  which  he  occupies  in  our  system.  The 
architect  in  the  construction  of  buildings,  lays  the  foundation 
with  the  proper  material — the  granite  ;  then  comes  the  brick  or 
the  marble.  The  substratum  of  our  society  is  made  of  the  mate 
rial  fitted  by  nature  for  it,  and  by  experience  we  know,  that  it  is 
best,  not  only  for  the  superior,  but  for  the  inferior  race,  that  it 
should  be  so.  It  is,  indeed,  in  conformity  with  the  ordinance  of 
the  Creator.  It  is  not  for  us  to  inquire  into  the  wisdom  of  his 
ordinances,  or  to  question  them.  For  his  own  purposes,  he  has 
made  one  race  to  differ  from  another,  as  he  has  made  "one  star 
to  differ  from  another  star  in  glory." 

The  great  objects  of  humanity  are  best  attained  when  there 
is  conformity  to  his  laws  and  decrees,  in  the  formation  of  govern 
ments  as  "well  as  in  all  things  else.  Our  confederacy  is  founded 
upon  principles  in  strict  conformity  with  these  laws.  This  stone 
which  was  rejected  by  the  first  builders  "is  become  the  chief  of 
the  cornel '' — the  real  "  corner-stone" — in  our  new  edifice.  [Ap 
plause.] 

I  have  been  asked,  what  of  the  future  ?  It  has  been  appre 
hended  by  some  that  we  would  have  arrayed  against  us  the  civil 
ized  world.  I  care  not  who  or  how  maity  they  may  be  against 
us,  when  we  stand  upon  the  eternal  principles  of  truth,  if  we  are 
true  to  ourselves  and  the  principles  for  which  we  contend,  we  are 
obliged  to,  and  must  triumph.  [Immense  applause.] 

Thousands  of  people  who  begin  to  understand  these  truths  are 
not  yet  complete!}'  out  of  the  shell ;  they  do  not  see  them  in  their 
length  and  breadth.  We  hear  much  of  the  civilization  and 
christianization  of  the  barbarous  tribes  of  Africa.  In  my  judg 
ment,  those  ends  will  never  be  attained,  but  by  first  teaching 
them  the  lesson  taught  to  Adam,  that  "  in  the  sweat  of  his  brow 
he  should  eat  his  bread,"  [applause,]  and  teaching  them  to  work, 
and  feed,  and  clothe  themselves. 

But  to  pass  on :  Some  have  propounded  the  inquiry  whether 
it  is  practicable  for  us  to  go  on  with  the  confederacy  without 
further  accessions  ?  Have  we  the  means  and  ability  to  maintain 
nationality  among  the  powers  of  the  earth  ?  On  this  point  I 
would  barely  say,  that  as  anxiously  as  we  all  have  been,  and  are, 
for  the  border  States,  with  institutions  similar  to  ours,  to  join  us, 
still  we  are  abundantly  able  to  maintain  our  position,  even  if  they 
should  ultimately  make  up  their  minds  not  to  cast  their  destiny 
with  us.  That  they  ultimately  will  join  us — be  compelled  to  do 
it — is  my  confident  belief;  but  we  can  get  on  very  well  without 
them,  even  if  they  should  not. 

We  have  all  the  essential  elements  of  a  high  national  career. 
The  idea  has  been  given  out  at  the  North,  and  even  in  the  border 
States,  that  we  are  too  small  and  too  weak  to  maintain  a  separate 
nationality.  This  is  a  great  mistake.  In  extent  of  territory  we 
embrace  five  hundred  and  sixty -four  thousand  square  miles  and 


724:  SKETCH   OF   THE   COKNER-STONE   SPEECH. 

upward.  This  is  upward  of  two  hundred  thousand  square  miles 
more  than  was  included  within  the  limits  of  the  original  thirteen 
States.  It  is  an  area  of  country  more  than  double  the  territory 
of  France  or  the  Austrian  empire.  France,  in  round  numbers, 
has  but  two  hundred  and  twelve  thousand  square  miles.  Austria, 
in  round  numbers,  has  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  thousand 
square  miles.  Ours  is  greater  than  both  combined.  It  is  greater 
than  all  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Great  Britain,  including 
England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  together.  In  population  we 
have  upward  of  five  millions,  according  to  the  census  of  1860  ; 
this  includes  white  and  black.  The  entire,  population,  including 
white  and  black,  of  the  original  thirteen  States,  was  less  than 
four  millions  in  1790,  and  still  less  in  "16,  when  the  independence 
of  our  fathers  was  achieved.  If  they,  with  a  less  population, 
dared  maintain  their  independence  against  the  greatest  power  on 
earth,  shall  we  have  any  apprehension  of  maintaining  ours  now  ? 

In  point  of  material  wealth  and  resources,  we  are  greatly  in 
advance  of  them.  The  taxable  property  of  the  Confederate  States 
cannot  be  less  than  thirty-two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ! 
This,  I  think  I  venture  but  little  in  saying,  may  be  considered  as 
five  times  more  than  the  colonies  possessed  at  the  time  they 
achieved  their  independence.  Georgia,  alone,  possessed  last 
year,  according  to  the  report  of  our  comptroller-general,  six 
hundred  and  seventy-two  millions  of  taxable  property.  The 
debts  of  the  seven  confederate  States  sum  up  in  the  aggregate 
less  than  eighteen  millions,  while  the  existing  debts  of  the  other 
of  the  late  United  States  sum  up  in  the  aggregate  the  enormous 
amount  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-four  millions  of  dollars.  This 
is  without  taking  into  the  account  the  heavy  city  debts,  corpora 
tion  debts,  and  railroad  debts,  which  press,  and  will  continue  to 
press,  as  a  heavy  incubus  upon  the  resources  of  those  States. 
These  debts,  added  to  others,  make  a  sum  total  not  much  under 
five  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  With  such  an  area  of  territory 
as  we  have — with  such  an  amount  of  population — with  a  climate 
and  soil  unsurpassed  by  any  011  the  face  of  the  earth — with  such 
resources  already  at  our  command — with  productions  which  con 
trol  the  commerce  of  the  world — who  can  entertain  any  appre 
hensions  as  to  our  ability  to  succeed,  whether  others  join  us  or 
not? 

It  is  true,  I  believe  I  state  but  the  common  sentiment,  when  I 
declare  my  earnest  desire  that  the  border  States  should  join  us. 
The  differences  of  opinion  that  existed  among  us  anterior  to 
secession,  related  more  to  the  policy  in  securing  that  result  by 
co-operation  than  from  any  difference  upon  the  ultimate  security 
we  all  looked  to  in  common. 

These  differences  of  opinion  were  more  in  reference  to  policy 
than  principle,  and  as  Mr.  Jefferson  said  in  his  inaugural,  in 
1801,  after  the  heated  contest  preceding  his  election,  there  might 
be  differences  of  opinion  without  differences  on  principle,  and 


SKETCH   OF  THE   CORNER-STOXE   SPEECH.  725 

that  all,  to  some  extent,  had  been  federalists  and  all  republicans ; 
so  it  may  now  be  said  of  us,  that  whatever  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  the  best  policy  in  having  a  co-operation  with  our  border  sister 
slave  States,  if  the  worst  came  to  the  worst,  that  as  we  were  all 
co-operationists,  we  are  now  all  for  independence,  whether  the}7" 
come  or  not.  [Continued  applause.] 

In  this  connection  I  take  this  occasion  to  state,  that  I  was  not 
without  grave  and  serious  apprehensions,  that  if  the  worst  came 
to  the  worst,  and  cutting  loose  from  the  old  government  should 
be  the  only  remedy  for  our  safety  and  security,  it  would  be 
attended  with  much  more  serious  ills  than  it  has  been  as  yet.  Thus 
far  we  have  seen  none  of  those  incidents  which  usually  attend 
revolutions.  No  such  material  as  such  convulsions  usually  throw 
up  has  been  seen.  Wisdom,  prudence,  and  patriotism,  have 
marked  every  step  of  our  progress  thus  far.  This  augurs  well 
for  the  future,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  sincere  gratification  to  me, 
that  I  am  enabled  to  make  the  declaration.  Of  the  men  I  met  in 
the  Congress  at  Montgomery,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  this, 
an  abler,  wiser,  a  more  conservative,  deliberate,  determined,  reso 
lute,  and  patriotic  body  of  men,  I  never  met  in  my  life.  [Great 
applause.]  Their  works  speak  for  them ;  the  provisional  govern 
ment  speaks  for  them ;  the  constitution  of  the  permanent  govern 
ment  will  be  a  lasting  monument  of  their  worth,  merit,  and  states 
manship.  [Applause.] 

But  to  return  to  the  question  of  the  future.  What  is  to  be  the 
result  of  this  revolution  ? 

Will  every  thing,  commenced  so  well,  continue  as  it  has  begun  ? 
In  reply  to  this  anxious  inquiry,  I  can  only  say  it  all  depends 
upon  ourselves.  A  young  man  starting  out  in  life  on  his  majority, 
with  health,  talent,  and  ability,  under  a  favoring  Providence, 
may  be  said  to  be  the  architect  of  his  own  fortunes.  His  desti 
nies  are  in  his  own  hands.  He  may  make  for  himself  a  name,  of 
honor  or  dishonor,  according  to  his  own  acts.  If  he  plants  him 
self  upon  truth,  integrity,  honor  and  uprightness,  with  industry, 
patience  and  energy,  he  cannot  fail  of  success.  .So  it  is  with  us. 
We  are  a  young  republic,  just  entering  upon  the  arena  of  nations ; 
we  will  be  the  architects  of  our  own  fortunes.  Our  destiny,  under 
Providence,  is  in  our  own  hands.  With  wisdom,  prudence,  and 
statesmanship  on  the  part  of  our  public  men,  and  intelligence, 
virtue  and  patriotism  on  the  part  of  the  people,  success,  to  the 
full  measures  of  our  most  sanguine  hopes,  may  be  looked  for. 
But  if  unwise  counsels  prevail — if  we  become  divided — if  schisms 
arise — if  dissensions  spring  up — if  factions  are  engendered — if 
party  spirit,  nourished  by  unholy  personal  ambition  shall  rear  its 
hydra  head,  I  have  no  good  to  prophesy  for  you.  Without  intel 
ligence,  virtue,  integrity,  and  patriotism  on  the  part  of  the  people, 
no  republic  or  representative  government  can  be  durable  or 
stable. 

We  have  intelligence,  and  virtue,  and  patriotism.     All  that  is 


726  SKETCH    OF    THE    COKNER-STONE    SPEECH. 

required  is  to  cultivate  and  perpetuate  these.  Intelligence  will 
not  do  without  virtue.  France  was  a  nation  of  philosophers. 
These  philosophers  become  Jacobins.  They  lacked  that  virtue, 
that  devotion  to  moral  principle,  and  that  patriotism  which  is 
essential  to  good  government.  Organized  upon  principles  of 
perfect  justice  and  right — seeking  amity  and  friendship  with  all 
other  powers — I  see  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  our  upward  and 
onward  progress.  Our  growth,  by  accessions  from  other  States, 
will  depend  greatly  upon  whether  we  present  to  the  world,  as  I 
trust  we  shall,  a  better  government  than  that  to  which  neighbor 
ing  States  belong.  If  we  do  this,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee, 
and  Arkansas  cannot  hesitate  long;  neither  can  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri.  They  will  necessarily  gravitate  to  us 
by  an  imperious  law.  We  made  ample  provision  in  our  constitu 
tion  for  the  admission  of  other  States ;  it  is  more  guarded,  and 
wisely  so,  I  think,  than  the  old  constitution  on  the  same  subject, 
but  not  too  guarded  to  receive  them  as  fast  as  it  may  be  proper. 
Looking  to  the  distant  future,  and,  perhaps,  not  very  far  distant 
either,  it  is  not  beyond  the  range  of  possibility,  and  even  proba 
bility,  that  all  the  great  States  of  the  north-west  will  gravitate 
this  way,  as  well  as  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkansas, 
etc.  Should  the}?-  do  so,  our  doors  are  wide  enough  to  receive 
them,  but  not  until  they  are  ready  to  assimilate  with  us  in 
principle. 

The  process  of  disintegration  in  the  old  Union  may  be  ex 
pected  to  go  on  with  almost  absolute  certainty  if  we  pursue  the 
right  course.  We  are  now  the  nucleus  of  a  growing  power 
which,  if  we  are  true  to  ourselves,  our  destiny,  and  high  mission, 
will  become  the  controlling  power  on  this  continent.  To  what 
extent  accessions  will  go  on  in  the  process  of  time,  or  where  it 
will  end,  the  future  will  determine.  So  far  as  it  concerns  States 
of  the  old  Union,  this  process  will  be  upon  no  such  principles  of 
reconstruction  as  now  spoken  of,  but  upon  reorganization  and 
new  assimilation.  [Loud  applause.]  Such  are  some  of  the 
glimpses  of  the  future  as  I  catch  them. 

But  at  first  we  must  necessarily  meet  with  the  inconveniences 
and  difficulties  and  embarrassments  incident  to  all  changes  of 
government.  These  will  be  felt  in  our  postal  affairs  and  changes 
in  the  channel  of  trade.  These  inconveniences,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
will  be  but  temporary,  and  must  be  borne  with  patience  and 
forbearance. 

As  to  whether  we  shall  have  war  with  our  late  confederates,  or 
whether  all  matters  of  differences  between  us  shall  be  amicably 
settled,  I  can  only  say  that  the  prospect  for  a  peaceful  adjust 
ment  is  better,  so  far  as  I  am  informed,  than  it  has  been. 

The  prospect  of  war  is,  at  least,  not  so  threatening  as  it  has 
been.  The  idea  of  coercion,  shadowed  forth  in  President  Lin 
coln's  inaugural,  seems  not  to  be  followed  up  thus  far  so  vigor 
ously  as  was  expected.  Fort  Sumter,  it  is  believed,  will  soon  be 


SKETCH   OF  THE   CORNER-STONE   SPEECH.  727 

evacuated.  What  course  will  be  pursued  toward  Fort  Pickens, 
and  the  other  forts  on  the  gulf,  is  not  so  well  understood.  It  is 
to  be  greatly  desired  that  all  of  them  should  be  surrendered. 
Our  object  is  peace,  not  only  with  the  North,  but  with  the  world. 
All  matters  relating  to  the  public  property,  public  liabilities  of 
the  Union  when  we  were  members  of  it,  we  are  ready  and  willing 
to  adjust  and  settle  upon  the  principles  of  right,  equity,  and 
good  faith.  War  can  be  of  no  more  benefit  to  the  North  than  to 
us.  Whether  the  intention  of  evacuating  Fort  Snmter  is  to  be 
received  as  an  evidence  of  a  desire  for  a  peaceful  solution 
of  our  difficulties  with  the  United  States,  or  the  result  of  neces 
sity,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  I  would  fain  hope  the 
former.  Rumors  are  afloat,  however,  that  it  is  the  result  of 
necessity.  All  I  can  say  to  you,  therefore,  on  that  point  is, 
keep  your  armor  bright  and  your  powder  dry.  [Enthusiastic 
cheering.] 

The  surest  way  to  secure  peace,  is  to  show  your  ability  to 
maintain  your  rights.  The  principles  and  position  of  the  present 
administration  of  the  United  States — the  republican  party — 
present  some  puzzling  questions.  While  it  is  a  fixed  principle 
with  them  never  to  allow  the  increase  of  a  foot  of  slave 
territory,  they  seem  to  be  equally  determined  not  to  part 
with  an  inch  "  of  the  accursed  soil."  Notwithstanding  their 
clamor  against  the  institution,  they  seemed  to  be  equally  opposed 
to  getting  more,  or  letting  go  what  they  have  got.  They  were 
ready  to  fight  on  the  accession  of  Texas,  and  are  equally  ready 
to  fight  now  on  her  secession.  Why  is  this  ?  How  can  this 
strange  paradox  be  accounted  for  ?  There  seems  to  be  but  one 
rational  solution — and  that  is,  notwithstanding  their  professions 
of  humanity,  they  are  disinclined  to  give  up  the  benefits  they 
derive  from  slave  labor.  Their  philanthropy  yields  to  their 
interest.  The  idea  of  enforcing  the  laws,  has  but  one  object, 
and  that  is  a  collection  of  the  taxes,  raised  by  slave  labor  to 
swell  the  fund,  necessary  to  meet  their  heavy  appropriations. 
The  spoils  is  what  they  are  after — though  they  come  from  the 
labor  of  the  slave.  [Continued  applause.] 

Mr.  Stephens  reviewed  at  some  length,  the  extravagance  and 
profligacy  of  appropriations  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  for  several  years  past,  and  in  this  connection  took  occa 
sion  to  allude  to  another  one  of  the  great  improvements  in  our 
new  constitution,  which  is  a  clause  prohibiting  Congress  from 
appropriating  any  money  from  the  treasury,  except  by  a  two- 
third  vote,  unless  it  be  for  some  object  which  the  executive  may 
say  is  necessary  to  carry  on  the  government. 

When  it  is  thus  asked  for,  and  estimated  for,  he  continued,  the 
majority  may  appropriate.  This  was  a  new  feature. 

Our  fathers  had  guarded  the  assessment  of  taxes  by  insisting 
that  representation  and  taxation  should  go  together.  This  was 


728  SKETCH    OF   THE    COBXEE-STOXE    SPEECH. 

inherited  from  the  mother  country,  England.  It  was  one  of  the 
principles  upon  which  the  revolution  had  been  fought.  Our 
fathers  also  provided  in  the  old  constitution,  that  all  appropria 
tion  bills  should  originate  in  the  representative  branch  of  Con 
gress,  but  our  new  constitution  went  a  step  further,  and  guarded 
not  only  the  pockets  of  the  people,  but  also  the  public  money, 
after  it  was  taken  from  their  pockets. 

He  alluded  to  the  difficulties  and  embarrassments  which  seemed 
to  surround  the  question  of  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  controversj7 
with  the  old  government.  How  can  it  be  done  ?  is  perplexing 
many  minds.  The  President  seems  to  think  that  he  cannot 
recognize  our  independence,  nor  can  he,  with  and  by  the  advice 
of  the  Senate,  do  so.  The  constitution  makes  no  such  provision. 
A  general  convention  of  all  the  States  has  been  suggested  by 
some. 

Without  proposing  to  solve  the  difficulty,  he  barely  made  the 
following  suggestion : 

"  That  as  the  admission  of  States  by  Congress  under  the  con 
stitution  was  an  act  of  legislation,  and  in  the  nature  of  a  contract 
or  compact  between  the  States  admitted  and  the  others  admitting, 
why  should  not  this  contract  or  compact  be  regarded  as  of  like 
character  with  all  other  civil  contracts — liable  to  be  rescinded  by 
mutual  agreement  of  both  parties  ?  The  seceding  States  have 
rescinded  it  on  their  part,  they  have  resumed  their  sovereignty. 
Why  cannot  the  whole  question  be  settled,  if  the  north  desire 
peace,  simply  by  the  Congress,  in  both  branches,  with  the  con 
currence  of  the  President,  giving  their  consent  to  the  separation, 
and  a  recognition  of  our  independence  ?"  This  he  merely  offered 
as  a  suggestion,  as  one  of  the  ways  in  which  it  might  be  done 
with  much  less  violence  by  constructions  to  the  constitution  than 
many  other  acts  of  that  government.  [Applause.]  The  difficulty 
has  to  be  solved  in  some  way  or  other — this  may  be  regarded  as 
a  fixed  fact. 

Several  other  points  were  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Stephens,  particu 
larly  as  to  the  policy  of  the  new  government  toward  foreign 
nations,  and  our  commercial  relations  with  them.  Free  trade, 
as  far  as  practicable,  would  be  the  policy  of  this  government. 
No  higher  duties  would  be  imposed  on  foreign  importations  than 
would  be  necessary  to  support  the  government  upon  the  strictest 
economy. 

In  olden  times  the  olive  branch  was  considered  the  emblem  of 
peace ;  we  will  send  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  another  and  far 
more  potential  emblem  of  the  same,  the  cotton  plant.  The  pres 
ent  duties  were  levied  with  a  view  of  meeting  the  present  necessi 
ties  and  exigencies,  in  preparation  for  war,  if  need  be ;  but  if  we 
have  peace,  and  he  hoped  we  might,  and  trade  should  resume  its 
proper  course,  a  duty  of  ten  per  cent,  upon  foreign  importations 
it  was  thought  might  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  expenditures  of  the 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    729 

government.  If  some  articles  should  be  left  on  the  free  list,  as 
they  now  are,  such  as  breadstuffs,  etc.,  then,  of  course,  duties 
upon  others  would  have  to  be  higher — but  in  no  event  to  an  ex 
tent  to  embarrass  trade  and  commerce.  He  concluded  in  an 
earnest  appeal  for  union  and  harmon}r,  on  part  of  all  the  people 
in  support  of  the  common  cause,  in  which  we  were  all  enlisted, 
and  upon  the  issues  of  which  such  great  consequences  depend. 

If,  said  he,  we  are  true  to  ourselves,  true  to  our  cause,  true  to 
our  destiny,  true  to  our  high  mission,  in  presenting  to  the  world 
the  highest  t}^pe  of  civilization  ever  exhibited  by  man — there  will 
be  found  in  our  lexicon  no  such  word  as  fail. 

Mr.  Stephens  took  his  seat,  amid  a  burst  of  enthusiasm  and 
applause,  such  as  the  Athenaeum  has  never  had  displayed  within 
its  walls,  within  "the  recollection  of  the  oldest  inhabitant." 

[BEPORTER'S  NOTE. — Your  reporter  begs  to  state  that  the  above  is  not  a 
perfect  report,  but  only  such  a  sketch  of  the  address  of  Mr.  Stephens  as 
embraces,  in  his  judgment,  the  most  important  points  presented  by  the 
orator. — G.] 


SPEECH   BEFORE   THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION 
CONVENTION. 

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL  23D,  1861. 

The  President  having  again  resumed  the  chair,  said : 
GENTLEMEN  OP  THE  CONVENTION  : — I  have  the  honor  to  intro 
duce  the  Hon.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS,  Vice-President  of  the 
Confederates  States,  who  comes  charged  with  a  special  mission 
from  the  Confederate  States  to  the  government  of  Virginia. 

SPEECH  OP  THE  HON.  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN  OP  THE  CONVENTION: — I  ap 
pear  before  you  on  this  occasion  upon  your  own  invitation, 
representing  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States.  My  mis 
sion  was  at  your  instance,  in  compliance  with  a  resolution  invit 
ing  that  government  to  send  a  commissioner  here.  The  powers 
by  which  I  am  accredited  were,  I  presume,  communicated  to  you 
by  your  executive  yesterday ;  and  I  have  simply  in  this  inter 
view,  in  accordance  with  your  request,  to  state  to  you  very  freely, 
candidly,  and  frankly,  what  are  the  wishes  and  objects  of  our 
government  in  sending  me  here.  I  will  premise  by  stating  with 
equal  candor  and  frankness  that  the  communication  from  this  con 
vention  to  our  government  inviting  this  conference,  was  received 
with  a  great  deal  of  gratification,  I  presume  that  no  event  since 
the'  separation  of  the  more  southern  States  from  the  late  Union, 
has  occurred  to  give  such  unbounded  pleasure  to  the  whole 


730    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

southern  people,  as  the  news  that  the  Old  Dominion  had  thrown 
her  fortunes  with  ours. 

We  had  thought,  from  the  beginning,  that  this  result  would 
ultimately  be  inevitable.  Individually,  you  will  allow  me  to 
say  I  had  not  the  slightest  doubt  upon  the  subject,  and  I  feel 
extremely  gratified  that  my  anticipations  have  been  so  early 
realized.  When  the  communication  was  received  that  Virginia 
had  seceded,  and  wished  a  conference  with  our  government,  there 
was  not  the  slightest  hesitation.  The  telegraph  announced  it  at 
two  o'clock,  p.  M.,  and  by  eight  in  the  evening  I  was  on  my  way 
here. 

It  is  true  your  resolution  simply  indicated  a  wish  to  form  an 
alliance  with  the  present  Confederate  States,  in  the  present  emer 
gency,  in  the  midst  of  the  present  perils  which  surround  you  and 
us  alike.  The  condition  of  this  body  is  not  unknown  to  our  gov 
ernment.  The  circumstances  under  which  you  are  assembled, 
and  the  limitations  of  the  powers  under  which  you  act,  are  very 
well  known  at  Montgomery.  We  know  the  condition  on  which 
your  ordinance  of  secession  was  necessarily  passed — that  it  wras, 
under  the  circumstances,  properly  subjected  to  the  popular  rati 
fication  of  your  people.  Embarrassments,  it  was  known,  there 
fore,  might  attend  any  alliance  that  may  be  made  ;  but  the  great 
question,  looking  to  existing,  present  perils,  and  the  dangers 
which  instantly  press  upon  you  and  us  alike,  was  how  best  to 
meet  these ;  how  best  to  provide  for  to-day,  leaving  the  troubles 
and  embarrassments  of  future  contingencies  to  be  provided  for 
as  they  may  arise.  An  immediate  alliance  to  the  extent  of  your 
powers  was  by  our  government  thought  best.  It  was  taken  for 
granted  that  such,  also,  was  your  opinion.  This  seems  to  be  too 
apparent  to  admit  of  doubt.  The  only  question  is  as  to  details. 
Common  dangers  require  common  and  united  action.  A  war  is 
upon  us — upon  3^011  and  the  Confederate  States  alike.  The  extent 
o?  this  war  no  human  ken  at  this  moment  can  foresee.  Whether 
it  be  short  or  prolonged  ;  whether  it  will  be  bloody  and  waged 
on  the  part  of  our  enemies,  with  a  view  to  subjugation  and  exter 
mination,  are  matters  of  uncertainty.  In  this  free  conference  I 
ina}r  be  permitted  to  give  you  my  individual  opinion  on  these 
points,  for  what  it  is  worth.  We  can  lose  nothing  by  looking 
dangers  full  in  the  face,  however  great ;  we  may  thereby  be  the 
better  enabled  to  meet  them.  My  own  opinion,  then,  is,  that  it  is  to 
be  a  war  for  our  subjugation  and  the  extermination,  if  possible, 
of  the  whole  fabric  of  our  civil  and  social  institutions.  This  is 
my  view  of  its  probable  ultimate  range ;  and  that  it  will  require  all 
the  resources  of  money  and  men  of  the  southern  people  to  maintain 
their  cause  successfully,  unless,  fortunately,  by  immediate  and 
prompt  action,  such  a  decisive  blow  shall  be  given,  on  our  part,  as 
will  turn  the  tide  of  victory  in  our  favor  at  the  outset,  and  show  our 
full  power  to  sustain  independence.  In  this  way  it  may  be  a  war 
of  short  duration  ;  but  this  is  rather  a  hope  than  an  expectation. 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    731 

As  to  the  ultimate  result — whether  long  or  short,  whether 
waged  on  a  small  or  extensive  scale — I  do  not  permit  myself  to 
entertain  a  doubt.  We  have  the  means — the  men,  and  those 
resources  which  will  command  the  money.  All  will  be  put  forth, 
if  necessary.  Still  the  issue  of  this  war,  as  of  all  wars,  as  well  as 
the  destinies  of  the  nation,  we  should  not  forget,  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  Great  Sovereign  of  the  universe.  In  Him  and  the  justice 
of  our  cause,  and  our  own  exertions,  our  trust  and  confidence  of 
success  should  be  placed.  Our  enemies  may  rely  upon  their  supe 
riority  of  numbers,  but  the  race  is  not  alwa}Ts  to  the  swift  nor 
the  battle  to  the  strong  ;  but  it  is  with  God  who  gives  the  victory 
to  the  right.  The  war  has  not  been  of  our  seeking.  We  have 
done  all  that  we  could  to  avoid  it.  We  feel  assured  of  the  right 
eousness  of  our  cause,  and  that  "  thrice  armed  is  he  who  hath  his 
quarrel  just."  We  have  committed  no  wrong  on  those  who  force 
the  war  on  us ;  we  have  made  no  aggression  on  them  or  theirs ; 
we  have  merely  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  all  free  and 
independent  States  to  govern  ourselves  as  we  please,  and  accord 
ing  to  our  own  wishes,  without  interfering  with  or  in  any  way 
molesting  the  other  sovereign  and  independent  States  that  formed 
the  old  Union.  With  those  States  we  were  united  under  a  com 
pact  known  as  the  constitution,  that  imposed  obligations  upon 
all  the  States.  These  obligations,  on  the  part  of  the  southern 
States,  have  been  faithfully  performed,  while  on  the  part  of  a 
large  number  of  the  northern  States,  they  were  openly  and  avow 
edly  disregarded.  The  breach  of  faith  was  on  their  part.  In  the 
judgment  of  our  people  the  only  hope  for  safety  was  in  a  resump 
tion  of  their  delegated  powers.  Having  resumed  the  powers  dele 
gated  to  the  general  government — a  right  which  Yirginina  dis 
tinctly  reserved  to  herself  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  consti 
tution — there  is  no  power  on  earth  that  can  rightfully  call  in 
question  our  acts  as  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  States,  so 
far  as  the  old  Union  is  concerned.  Even  in  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Webster,  the  great  northern  expounder  of  the  constitution,  when 
the  northern  States  refused  to  fulfill  their  obligations  under  the 
constitution,  it  was  no  longer  binding  upon  the  southern  States. 

But  this  is  a  digression.  It  was  only  intended  to  impress  the 
rightfulness  of  our  cause.  The  matter  now  before  us  is  the  for 
mation  of  a  new  alliance  that  will  better  secure  our  rights  and 
our  safety — the  first  object  of  every  State  and  community. 

The  importance  of  a  union  or  an  alliance  of  some  sort  on  the 
part  of  your  commonwealth  with  the  present  Confederate  States 
south,  in  this  conflict  for  our  common  rights,  I  need  not  discuss 
before  this  intelligent  body.  Any  one  State,  acting  in  its  own 
capacity,  without  concert  with  other  States,  would  be  pow 
erless,  or  at  least  could  not  exert  its  power  efficiently.  The 
cause  of  Virginia,  and  I  will  go  further,  the  cause  of  Maryland, 
and  even  the  cause  of  Delaware,  and  of  all  the  States  with  insti 
tutions  similar  to  ours,  is  the  cause  of  the  Confederate  States — . 


732    SPEECH  BEFOEE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

the  cause  of  each,  the  interests  of  each,  the  safety  of  each  is  the 
same  ;  and  the  destiny  of  each,  if  they  could  all  but  be  brought 
to  realize  the  dangers,  would  be  the  same.  Therefore,  where 
there  is  a  common  danger ;  where  there  is  a  common  interest ; 
where  there  is  a  common  safety  ;  where  there  is  a  common  des 
tiny,  there  ought  to  be  a  common  and  united  effort. 

This  is  the  view  entertained  by  our  government,  and  hence  the 
invitation  of  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia  was  responded  to  so 
promptly. 

There  are  various  reasons  that  I  might  present  to  enforce  the 
importance  of  such  a  policy,  if  I  were  aware  of  there  being  the 
slightest  necessity  for  it ;  but  I  am  not.  Indeed,  I  am  speaking 
without  knowing  any  thing  of  the  individual  sentiments  of  the 
members  of  the  convention ;  and  it  may  be  that  what  I  am  now 
stating  to  the  convention  as  very  important  to  them  and  to  us,  is 
a  subject  upon  which  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion.  The  truth 
of  the  general  propositions  thus  cursorily  stated,  /^ms  to  me  to 
be  so  self-evident,  that  I  feel  it  hardly  necessary'to  argue  them 
before  you.  I  will,  however,  add  a  few  things,  briefly. 

First,  as  to  the  ends  or  objects  of  the  alliance.  To  me  it  seems 
very  important  that  your  military  should  at  least  be  in  co-opera 
tion  with,  if  not  under  the  direction  of  the  Confederate  States 
government.  We  will  necessarily  have  a  large  amount  of  forces 
in  the  field.  When  I  left  Montgomery  there  was  50,000  troops 
ordered  out ;  15,000  of  them  were  then  under  arms,  and  most  of 
them  are  perhaps  under  arms  by  this  time  From  information 
received  from  the  Executive  to-day,  it  appears  that  the  President 
of  the  Confederacy  has  ordered  out  thirteen  more  regiments  since 
I  left.  That  will  be  about  12,000  more  troops.  North  Carolina 
may  be  considered  as  co-operating  with  us  now,  though  this 
large  force  (12,000)  does  not  embrace  any  from  that  State. 
Tennessee  also  has  tendered  5000,  with  an  assurance  from  dis 
tinguished  gentlemen  from  that  State  to  our  government,  on 
Tuesday  of  last  week,  that  soon  after  the  news  of  the  bombard 
ment  of  Fort  Sumter,  15,000  had  tendered  their  services,  and 
that,  if  necessary,  50,000  would  be  forthcoming.  So  large  a 
number,  however,  would  not  be  called  for  from  there. 

Kentucky,  also,  has  a  large  body  of  men,  who  will  be  mustered 
into  our  service  should  the  exigency  arise.  It  may  be  that  some 
of  those  troops  may  be  discharged,  and  their  places  supplied  by 
others;  but  100,000  men  will  perhaps  be  in  the  field  in  less  than 
three  months.  That  is  not  counting  Virginia.  You,  of  course, 
will  have  a  large  force.  All  these  forces  should  co-operate  to  be 
efficient ;  and  while  I  don't  claim  to  be  a  military  man,  it  seems 
to  me  to  be  clear,  on  general  rational  principles,  that  all  the 
forces — those  of  the  Confederate  States,  those  of  Virginia,  as  well 
as  those  of  the  border  States  that  are  not  yet  out  of  the  Union 
—should  be  under  one  head,  as  also  all  the  military  operations 
of  the  country  directed  to  the  same  ends.  It  is  generally  admitted 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    733 

that,  in  the  execution  of  laws,  it  is  essential  that  there  should  be 
one  head  ;  but  more  important  than  in  the  usual  execution  of 
laws  is  it  that  military  operations  should  be  under  one  head.  In 
physical  economy  all  the  parts  and  functions  in  each  organism, 
to  be  efficient,  are  under  the  control  of  one- head,  one  animating, 
moving  spirit,  with  one  sensorium,  one  mind,  one  directing  will. 
In  military  matters,  looking  to  the  same  ends  and  objects,  there 
should  be  one  head.  It  is  probable  Virginia  will  be  the  main 
theatre,  to  a  great  extent,  of  the  pending  conflict.  Maryland 
may  be,  perhaps — we  don't  know ;  but  the  line  of  Virginia,  your 
great  waters  on  th«  North,  necessarily  make  you,  in  this  conflict, 
the  theatre  of  large  and  extensive  rnilita^  operations,  if  not  the 
scene  of  the  bloodiest  conflicts  that  this  continent  has  ever  yet 
witnessed.  You  will,  necessarily,  therefore,  look  to  the  southern 
confederacy  immediately  for  aid,  even  whether  you  become  a 
member  of  it  or  not.  I  will  state  here,  however,  before  passing 
any  further,  that  we  are  looking  to  this,  your  ultimate  union  with 
us,  as  a  fixed  fact  ;  and  the  unanimous  desire  of  every  branch  of 
our  government  is,  that,  just  as  speedily  as  possible,  you  will 
thus  link  your  fortunes  with  ours.  Your  cause  is  ours,  your 
future  will  be  ours  ;  and  your  destiny  must  be  ours. 

But  my  mission  relates  to  the  intermediate  time ;  to  such  alli 
ance  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  next  twenty  or  forty  days — 
before  action  can  be  taken  ~by  the  people  in  their  sovereign 
capacity  at  the  ballot-box.  In  the  meantime,  between  now  and 
then,  the  salus  populi  must  be  the  rule  of  your  action  as  the 
custodians  of  popular  rights.  Your  duty  to  yourselves  and  your 
homes,  is  to  look  immediately  to  the  pressing  wants  of  your 
people,  and,  in  the  meantime,  make  such  preparations  as  are 
necessary  to  meet  this  extraordinary  exigency.  Is  it  not  essen 
tial  that  there  should  be  concert  and  united  action  under  one 
head  ?  Now,  what  can  Virginia  do  under  a  military  organization 
distinct  from  that  of  the  Confederate  States  ?  How  can  she  act 
in  concert  with  her  allies,  or  those  willing  to  help  her  without 
some  compact  or  agreement  ?  Troops  from  the  South  are  already 
on  the  way  here.  Two  regiments  from  South  Carolina  will,  per 
haps,  be  here  within  the  next  twenty-four  hours.  Forces  have 
been  ordered  from  Louisiana,  and  are  coming  immediately  to 
your  assistance.  Ought  there  not  to  be  some  understanding  as 
to  how  they  shall  be  received  and  how  directed  ?  Would  it  not 
be  better  that  these  troops,  as  well  as  your  whole  military  opera 
tions,  should  be  under  the  control  and  supervision  of  our  govern 
ment  ?  To  me  it  seems  essential  for  efficient  action.  These  sug 
gestions  are  thrown  out  for  the  consideration  of  the  convention. 

There  are  other  considerations  which  I  might  also  present.  I 
know  the  condition  of  your  State  in  financial  matters  only  to  a 
limited  extent.  I  know  the  vast  resources  of  Virginia,  and  I 
know  that  her  people,  with  the  patriotism  that  has  ever  distin 
guished  them,  would  never  permit  her  cause  to  suffer  for  lack  of 


734    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION". 

means  at  any  cost  or  sacrifice.  But  have  you  the  means  now  at 
command  ?  Arms  must  be  had,  munitions  of  war  must  be  pro 
cured,  men  must  be  sent  immediately  to  the  field — these  must  be 
clothed  and  fed  as  well  as  armed.  All  this  will  require  money. 
"Money  is  the  sinew  of  war."  Where  money  cannot  be  had, 
credit  may  answer.  But  money  or  credit,  which  will  command 
it,  is  essential.  On  the  financial  point,  so  far  as'it  relates  to  the 
Confederate  States,  I  may  state  here,  that  our  Congress  author 
ized  a  loan  of  fifteen  millions  at  its  last  session. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  advertised  for  five  millions. 
The  loan  was  taken  the  day  I  left  Montgomery.  There  were 
two  days  for  its  subscription.  When  I  left,  news  had  already 
reached  by  telegraph  from  the  cities  that  seven  millions  of  the 
loan  of  fiye  that  had  been  offered  had  been  taken.  The  subscrip 
tions  in  the  interior  towns  had  not  been  heard  from,  but  it  was 
believed  that  the  whole  amount  would  not  fall  far  short  of  nine 
or  ten  millions — double  the  amount  offered.  This  shows  how 
our  credit  stands — the  money  thus  raised  is  now  at  the  disposal 
of  our  government ;  and  it  was  believed  that  if  an  offer  for  the 
other  five  millions  should  be  made,  making  the  whole  fifteen 
millions,  it  would  be  subscribed  in  ten  days.  Our  people,  from 
South  Carolina  to  the  Rio  Grande,  are  in  this  movement  heart 
and  soul ;  and  every  dollar  that  can  be  raised  will  be  used  for 
the  defence  of  the  country  in  this  emergency.  No  serious  diffi 
culty  is  apprehended  as  to  our  ability  to  raise  the  necessary 
means.  In  the  State  of  Georgia,  before  we  entered  into  an  alli 
ance  with  the  other  States,  apprehensions  were  felt  as  to  our 
available  means.  Georgia  ordered  a  loan  on  her  own  account, 
of  one  million  of  dollars.  This  was  promptly  raised  or  provided 
for  in  our  own  State.  What  amount  it  will  require  to  put  your 
State  in  proper  defence  and  to  meet  the  invasion  that  may  be 
looked  for  is  a  matter  for  your  own  considerate  attention — and 
also  whether  the  State  at  this  time  could,  without  a  sacrifice  of 
her  credit,  raise  the  requisite  amount. 

An  army  of  not  less  than  50,000  men  will  doubtless  be 
required  in  you  State.  On  this  point  your  distinguished  com- 
mander-in-chief,  just  duly  installed  into  office,  can  of  course  give 
better  information  than  any  conjecture  of  mine.  But  whether 
a  small  or  large  force  shall  be  required,  it  may  be  considered  as 
certain  that  many  millions  will  be  required  to  cover  the  expense. 
Whether  you  have  the  means  to  do  this,  is  a  matter  for  you  to 
consider. 

Again :  if  you  had  the  means,  another  question  is,  would  it  be 
right  for  Virginia,  on  her  own  account,  to  make  this  heavy 
expenditure  in  this  enterprise?  Because  you  stand  on  the 
border,  it  is  not  our  desire  that  you  should  fight  our  battles. 
We  don't  wish  you  alone  to  fight  these  battles,  or  to  bear  your 
self  the  expense  of  defending  Virginia.  I  know  that  the  intima 
tion  has  been  held  out  in  other  parts  that  we  were  not  consider- 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    735 

ing  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  our  brethren  on  the  border 
States.  I  give  you  every  assurance  that  our  government  feels 
thoroughly  identified  with  you  in  interest,  and  we  do  not  wish 
your  great  commonwealth  to  do  more  than  bear  her  part  in  this 
contest.  We  know  she  is  willing  to  do  that.  So  far  as  the 
pecuniary  matters  are  concerned  then,  I  simply  suggest  whether 
it  would  not  be  wise  and  just  and  proper  that  all  should  share 
the  burden  equally — and  whether  we  should  not  as  our  fathers 
did,  in  the  first  struggle  for  independence,  look  to  each  other, 
and  bear  equally  the  costs  of  a  common  cause  ?  This  I  present, 
whether  Virginia  joins  us  ultimately  or  not.  But  to  be  entirely 
frank.  I  must  say  that  we  are  looking  to  a  speedy  and  early 
union  of  your  State  with  our  confederacy.  Hence  the  greater 
importance  for  this  immediate  and  temporary  alliance.  We  want 
Virginia,  the  mother  of  States,  as  well  as  of  statesmen,  to  be  one 
of  the  States  of  our  confederation.  We  want  it  because  your 
people  are  our  people — your  interests  are  our  interests ;  nay, 
more  :  because  of  the  very  prestige  of  the  name  of  the  old  com 
monwealth.  We  want  it,  because  of  the  memory  of  Jefferson, 
of  Madison,  and  Washington,  the  father  of  his  country — we 
want  it  for  all  the  associations  of  the  past — we  want  it  because 
the  principles  in  our  constitution,  both  provisional  and  perma 
nent,  sprung  from  Virginia.  They  emanated  from  your  states 
men — they  are  Virginian  throughout — taught  by  your  illustrious 
sages,  and  by  their  instrumentality  mainly,  were  incorporated  in 
the  old  constitution.  That  ancient  and  sacred  instrument  has 
no  less  of  our  regard  and  admiration  now  than  it  ever  had.  We 
quit  the  Union,  but  not  the  constitution — this  we  have  preserved. 
Secession  from  the  old  Union  on  the  part  of  the  Confederate  States 
was  founded  upon  the  conviction  that  the  time-honored  constitu 
tion  of  our  fathers  was  about  to  be  utterly  undermined  and 
destroyed,  and  that  if  the  present  administration  at  Washington 
had  been  permitted  to  rule  over  us,  in  less  than  four  years,  per 
haps,  this  inestimable  inheritance  of  liberty,  regulated  and  pro 
tected  by  fundamental  law,  would  have  been  forever  lost.  We 
believe  that  the  movement  with  us  has  been  the  only  course  to 
save  that  great  work  of  Virginia  statesmen. 

On  this  point  indulge  me  a  moment.  Under  the  latitudinarian 
construction  of  the  constitution  which  prevails  at  the  north,  the 
general  idea  is  maintained  that  the  will  of  the  majority  is  su 
preme  ;  and  as  to  constitutional  checks  or  restraints,  they  have 
no  just  conception  of  them.  The  constitution  was,  at  first, 
mainly  the  work  of  southern  men,  and  Virginia  men  at  that. 
The  government  under  it  lasted  only  so  long  as  it  was  kept  in  its 
proper  sphere  with  due  regard  to  its  limitations,  checks,  and  bal 
ances.  This,  from  the  origin  of  the  government,  was  effected 
mainly  by  southern  statesmen.  It  was  only  when  all  farther 
effort  seemed  to  be  hopeless  to  keep  the  federal  government 
within  its  proper  sphere  of  delegated  powers,  that  the  Confederate 


736    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

States,  each  for  itself,  resumed  those  powers  and  looked  out  for 
new  safeguards  for  their  rights  and  domestic  tranquillity.  These 
are  found  not  in  abandoning  the  constitution,  but  in  adhering 
only  to  those  who  will  faithfully  sustain  it. 

We  have  rescued  the  constitution  from  utter  annihilation. 
This  is  our  conviction,  and  we  believe  history  will  so  record  the 
fact.  You  have  seen  what  we  have  done.  Our  constitution  has 
been  published.  Perhaps  most  of  you  have  read  it.  If  not  I 
have  a  copy  here,  which  is  at  the  service  of  any  who  may  wish  to 
examine  it.  It  is  the  old  constitution,  with  all  its  essentials  and 
some  changes,  of  which  I  may  speak  presently. 

It  is  upon  this  basis  we  are  looking  to  your  union  with  us  ; 
first,  by  the  adoption  of  the  provisional  constitution,  and  then  of 
the  permanent  one,  in  such  a  way  as  you  may  consider  best,  under 
the  limitations  of  your  powers.  This  I  may  be  pardoned  for 
pressing  upon  the  convention,  and  expressing  the  hope  that  they 
may  do  it,  utterly  ignoring  all  past  differences  of  opinion. 

In  all  bodies  of  men  differences  of  opinion  may  be  expected  ; 
but  the  disagreements  and  differences,  with  you,  as  was  the  case 
with  us,  will  perhaps  be  found  to  relate  more  as  to  the  mode  of 
action,  than  to  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  action  of  some 
sort.  As  to  differences  in  the  past,  on  the  subject  of  union  and 
secession,  let  them  be  buried  and  forgotten  forever. 

My  position  and  views  upon  these  questions  in  the  past  may 
be  known  to  you.  If  not,  it  may  be  proper  to  state,  and  I  feel 
no  reluctance  in  declaring,  in  your  presence  here  in  the  capitol 
of  the  old  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  that  there  never  breathed 
a  human  spirit  on  the  soil  of  America  more  strongly  and  devoutly 
attached  to  the  Union  of  our  fathers  than  I.  I  was,  however,  in 
favor  of  no  Union  that  did  not  secure  perfect  equality  and  pro 
tection  of  all  rights  guaranteed  under  the  constitution.  I  was 
not  insensible  of  the  fact  that  several  of  the  northern  States  had 
openly  repudiated  their  constitutional  obligations,  and  that  if  the 
principles  of  the  present  dominant  party  should  be  carried  out, 
ultimate  separation  was  inevitable.  But  still,  I  did  trust  that 
there  was  wisdom  and  patriotism  enough  at  the  north,  when 
aroused,  to  correct  the  evils,  to  right  the  wrongs  and  to  do  us 
justice.  I  trusted  even  to  the  last,  for  some  hopeful  reaction  in 
the  popular  sentiment  at  the  North. 

I  was  attached  to  the  Union,  however,  not  on  account  of  the 
Union  per  se,  but  I  was  attached  to  it  for  what  was  its  soul,  its 
vitality  and  spirit ;  these  were  the  living  embodiments  of  the 
great  principles  of  self-government,  springing  from  the  great 
truth,  that  the  just  powers  of  all  governments  are  derived  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  as  it  was  transmitted  to  us  by  our 
fathers.  This  is  the  foundation  on  which  alone  all  constitutional 
liberty  is  and  must  be  based — and  to  these  principles  I  am  to-day 
attached  just  as  ardently  as  I  ever  was  before,  and  I  now 
announce  to  you  my  solemn  conviction  that  the  only  hope  you 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    737 

have  for  the  preservation  of  these  principles,  is  by  your  alliance 
with  those  who  have  rescued,  restored,  and  re-established  them 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Confederate  States — there  is  no  hope 
in  the  States  north. 

The  disagreements  that  existed  in  our  State  as  to  the  course 
that  we  should  pursue,  before  the  last  resort  of  secession  was 
adopted,  were  more  as  to  the  mode  and  manner  of  redress,  than 
as  to  the  cause  of  the  grievance  or  the  existence  of  the  grievance 
requiring  redress.  I  take  this  occasion,  in  passing,  to  state  to 
you,  that  in  our  convention  there  was  considerable  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  view  of  the  subject.  It  may  not  be  known  to  you 
that  on  that  occasion,  I  disagreed  with  the  majority  on  the  course 
adopted.  My  vote  was  recorded  against  the  secession  ordinance 
in  our  State.  I  was  for  making  one  more  effort,  and  for  getting 
the  whole  South  united  if  possible  in  that  effort  for  redress. 

But  when  the  State  in  her  sovereign  capacity  determined 
otherwise,  my  judgment  was  yielded  to  hers.  My  allegiance  was 
due  to  her.  My  fortunes  were  linked  with  hers  ;  her  cause  was 
my  cause ;  and  her  destiny  was  my  destiny.  A  large  minority 
in  that  convention  voted  as  I  did.  But  after  secession  was  deter 
mined  on  by  the  majority,  a  resolution  was  drawn  up  to  the 
effect,  that  whereas  the  lack  of  unanimity  on  the  passage  of  the 
ordinance,  was  owing  more  to  a  disagreement  as  to  the  proper 
mode  at  the  time  for  a  redress  of  existing  wrongs  and  threatened 
wrongs,  than  as  to  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  such  wrongs  as 
required  redress;  therefore,  after  the  mode  and  manner  was 
adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  convention,  that  all  of  us,  as  an 
evidence  of  our  determination  to  maintain  the  State  in  her  chosen 
remedy,  should  sign  the  ordinance ;  and  with  that  determination 
under  that  resolution,  every  member  of  the  convention,  except 
six,  signed  it.  Those  six  also  declared  upon  record  a  like  deter 
mination  on  their  part.  So  our  State  became  a  unit  upon  the 
measure,  when  it  was  resolved  upon.  All  anterior  differences 
amongst  us  were  dropped.  The  cause  of  Georgia  was  the  cause 
of  us  all ;  and  so  I  trust  it  will  be  in  Virginia.  Let  all  past 
differences  be  forgotten.  Whether,  if  some  other  course  had  been 
adopted,  our  rights  could  have  ultimately  been  secured  in  the 
old  Union,  is  a  problem  now  that  can  never  be  solved.  I  am  free 
to  confess,  as  I  frankly  do,  that  the  late  indications  afford  strong 
evidence  that  the  majority  at  the  North  were  bent  upon  our  des 
truction  at  every  cost  and  every  hazard.  At  all  events,  we  know 
that  our  only  hope  now  is  in  our  own  strong  arms  and  stout 
hearts,  with  unity  among  ourselves.  Our  course  is  adopted.  We 
can  take  no  steps  backward.  The  time  for  compromise,  if  it  ever 
existed,  is  past.  Many  entertained  hopes  from  the  "  Peace  Con 
gress" — that  failed.  Even  an  extension  of  the  Missouri  line, 
which  was  offered  by  prominent  southern  men,  was  sullenly 
rejected.  Every  indication  of  northern  sentiment  on  the  part  of 
the  dominant  party  there,  since  the  election  last  fall,  shows  that 
47 


738    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

they  were  and  are  bent  upon  carrying  out  their  aggressive  and 
destructive  policy  against  us.  This  they  insidiously  expected  to 
succeed  in,  by  relying  upon  the  known  strong  Union  sentiment 
in  the  border  States.  They  evidently  relied  strongly  on  this  in 
Virginia.  Their  policy  being  to  divide  and  conquer.  In  this,  I 
think,  however,  they  counted  without  their  host. 

The  people  of  Virginia  may  have  been  attached  to  the  Union ; 
but  they  are  much  more  attached  to  their  homes,  their  firesides 
and  all  that  is  dear  to  freemen — constitutional  liberty. 

All  hopes  of  preserving  this  in  the  old  Union  are  gone  forever. 
We  must  for  the  future  look  to  ourselves.  It  is  cheering  to  feel 
conscious  that  we  are  not  without  hope  in  that  quarter.  At  first, 
I  must  confess,  that  I  was  not  without  serious  apprehensions  on 
that  point.  These  apprehensions  were  allayed  at  Montgomery. 

The  men  who  were  sent  there  were  not  such  materials  as  revo 
lutions  usually  throw  up.  They  seemed  to  understand  thoroughly 
the  position  of  affairs — the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future. 
They  duly  appreciated  the  magnitude  of  the  responsibilities 
resting  upon  them,  and  proved  themselves,  I  trust,  not  only 
determined  to  overthrow  one  government,  but  capable  of  build 
ing  up  another.  Their  work,  as  I  have  said,  is  before  you. 
One  leading  idea  runs  through  the  whole — the  preservation  of 
that  time-honored  constitutional  liberty  which  they  inherited 
from  their  fathers. 

The  first  thing  was  to  organize  a  provisional  government. 
This  was  done  by  the  adoption  of  the  provisional  constitution. 
It  is  to  last  but  one  year,  and  conforms  to  our  ancient  usages  as 
nearly  as  practicable.  No  changes  in  essential  or  fundamental 
principles.  We  have  but  one  legislative  body.  This  possesses 
the  powers  of  the  old  Senate  and  House  combined ;  but  the 
rights  of  the  States  and  the  sovereign  equality  of  each  is  fully 
recognized — more  fully  than  under  the  old  constitution,  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  action  of  the  convention ;  for,  during  the 
provisional  government,  on  all  questions  in  Congress,  each  State 
has  an  equal  vote.  This  provisional  government  was  only  a 
temporary  arrangement  to  meet  the  exigencies  until  a  permanent 
constitution  could  be  formed  and  put  into  operation.  This  was 
really  the  great  work  before  them. 

In  this,  as  in  the  provisional  government,  the  old  constitution 
of  our  fathers — the  constitution  of  Madison  and  Washington, 
was  their  model.  I  said  I  might  say  something  touching  its  pro 
visions.  Time  will  not  allow  me  to  go  much  into  details.  You 
will  please  read  and  examine  it  minutely  for  yourselves.  While 
the  old  constitution  was  the  basis  and  model  of  its  construction, 
you  will  find  in  it  several  changes  and  modifications.  Some  of 
them  important.  But  of  them  all  I  make  in  passing  this  general 
remark — they  are  all  of  a  conservative  character.  This  is  the 
most  striki  'g  characteristic  of  our  revolution  or  change  of  gov- 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.  739 

ernment  thus  far,  that  none  of  the  changes  introduced  are  of  a 
radical  or  downward  tendency. 

But  all  the  changes — every  one  of  them — are  upon  what  is 
called  the  conservative  side.  Now,  this  I  ask  your  special  atten 
tion  to.  It  is  an  important  fact.  I  wish  ycm  specially  to  mark 
it,  for  I  know  that  efforts  has  been  made  to  create  prejudice 
against  our  movement  by  telling  the  conservative  men  of  the 
country  that  it  sprung  from  some  of  the  hot  heads  down  South, 
and  should  not  be  relied  on  or  trusted.  But  take  the  constitu 
tion  and  read  it,  and  you  will  find  that  every  change  in  it  from 
the  old  constitution  is  conservative.  In  many  respects  it  is  an 
improvement  upon  the  constitution  of  our  fathers.  It  has  such 
improvements  as  the  experience  of  seventy  years  showed  were 
required.  In  this  particular  our  revolution  thus  far  is  distin 
guished  from  popular  revolutions  in  the  history  of  the  world.  In 
it  are  settled  many  of  the  vexed  questions  wThich  disturbed  us  in 
the  old  confederacy.  A  few  of  these  may  be  mentioned — such 
as  that  no  money  shall  be  appropriated  from  the  common  treas 
ury  for  internal  improvement ;  leaving  all  such  matters  for  the 
local  and  State  authorities.  The  tariff  question  is  also  settled. 
The  presidential  term  is  extended,  and  no  re-election  allowed. 
This  will  relieve  the  country  of  those  periodical  agitations  from 
which  sprang  so  much  mischief  in  the  old  government.  If  his 
tory  shall  record  the  truth  in  reference  to  our  past  system  of 
government,  it  will  be  written  of  us  that  one  of  the  greatest 
evils  in  the  old  government  was  the  scramble  for  public  offices 
— connected  with  the  Presidential  election.  This  evil  is  entirely 
obviated  under  the  constitution  which  we  have  adopted. 

Many  other  improvements,  as  I  think,  could  be  mentioned,  but 
it  is  unnecessary.  I  have  barely  alluded  to  the  subject  to  show 
you  that  we  do  not  invite  you  to  any  wild  scheme  of  revolution. 
We  invite  Virginia  to  join  us  in  perpetuating  the  principles  upon 
which  she  has  ever  stood — the  only  hope  of  constitutional  liberty 
in  the  world,  as  I  now  seriously  apprehend.  If  it  fails  with  us, 
where  else  can  we  see  hope  ?  But  for  the  South,  what  would 
have  become  of  the  principles  of  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Wash 
ington,  as  embodied  in  the  old  constitution  long  ago  ?  What 
ever  the  United  States  government  has  done  in  advancement  of 
civilization,  by  solving  the  great  principles  of  self-government 
by  the  people,  through  representatives  clothed  witli  delegated 
powers,  is  due  mainly  to  the  South.  The  achievement  has  been 
by  southern  statesmen.  The  honor  and  glory  of  the  western 
republic,  to  which  the  eyes  of  the  world  has  been  directed  for 
years,  was  the  work  mainly  of  southern  men,  and  my  judgment 
is,  if  you  will  pardon  its  expression,  that  just  so  soon  as  the 
South  is  entirely  separated  from  the  North,  and  the  government 
at  Washington  has  no  longer  the  advice  and  counsel  of  your 
statesmen  and  the  men  of  the  South,  they  will  go  into  confusion 
and  anarchy  speedily.  It  gives  me  no  pleasure  to  think  so.  It 


740  SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

would  be  to  our  advantage,  as  well  as  theirs,  for  them,  as  we  can 
no  longer  live  in  safety  and  peace  under  the  same  constitution,  to 
go  on  and  be  prosperous,  and  leave  us  to  do  the  same.  But  my 
conviction  is  that  they  will  not.  They  do  not  understand  consti 
tutional  liberty.  It  is  an  exotic  in  their  clime.  It  is  a  plant  of 
southern  growth.  I  have,  however,  no  war  to  make  on  their 
institutions.  They  seem  to  think  them  better  than  ours,  and,  not 
satisfied  with  this,  they  war  upon  ours.  Now,  the  true  policy  of 
both  sides,  should  be  to  let  each  other  alone.  Let  both  try  their 
systems,  not  in  war,  but  in  friendly  rivalship.  Hence  it  is  from 
no  unkind  feelings  toward  them  or  their  institutions,  that  I 
express  the  opinion  I  do.  I  believe  that  our  institutions  are  by 
far  the  best.  My  judgment  is  that  theirs  will  be  a  failure.  I 
would  give  them  every  opportunity  to  try  them  thoroughly  by 
themselves,  and  for  themselves.  I  simply  give  my  view  of  what 
I  believe  to  be  the  prospect  on  both  sides,  as  well  as  the  true 
policy  of  both  ;  but  I  seriousty  doubt  whether  the  rivalry  which 
I  would  fain  indulge  the  hope  of  seeing  carried  out,  will  be 
engaged  in.  War  is  what  they  are  bent  on  in  the  start.  Where 
this  will  end,  time  alone  can  determine.  What  I  have  ventured 
to  say  of  the  probable  future  of  the  North,  is  founded  upon  the 
experience  and  associations  of  many  years  with  their  public  men 
in  Washington.  They  do  not  seem  to  understand  the  nature  or 
workings  of  a  federative  system.  They  have  but  slender  concep*- 
tions  of  limited  powers.  Their  ideas  run  into  consolidation. 

Whilst  I  was  in  Congress  I  knew  of  but  few  men  there  from 
the  North  who  ever  made  a  constitutional  argument  on  any  ques 
tion.  They  seemed  to  consider  themselves  as  clothed  with 
unlimited  power.  Mr.  Webster  was  one  of  these  distinguished 
few.  Though  he  generally  differed  from  southern  men  on  points 
of  constitutional  power,  yet  he  argued  his  side  with  great  ability. 
Mr.  Douglas  is  also  another  distinguished  exception  to  the  general 
remark.  One  or  two  others  might  be  named  as  exceptions  to 
the  rule,  but  the  great  majority,  the  almost  entire  representation 
from  the  North  in  Congress,  both  in  the  House  and  Senate, 
seemed  really  to  have  no  correct  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  gov 
ernment  they  were  engaged  in  carrying  on.  They  looked  upon 
it  simply  as  a  government  of  majorities. 

They  did  not  seem  to  understand  that  it  was  a  government 
that  bound  majorities  by  constitutional  restraints.  Now,  nothing 
is  more  fixed  or  certain  than  that  constitutional  liberty  can  be 
maintained  only  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  fundamental  principles. 
Government  is  a  science — the  northern  mind  seems  disinclined 
to  that  sort  of  study.  Excuse  this  digression.  It  may  not,  how 
ever,  be  altogether  inappropriate  to  the  occasion — all  things  being 
duly  considered.  It  springs  from  no  disposition  on  my  part 
wantonly  to  disparage  northern  character.  It  is  intended  rather 
to  show  where  our  future  safety  and  security  lies.  We  have  our 
destiny  under  Providence  i  our  own  hands,  and  we  must  work 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    741 

it  out  the  best  we  can.  All  we  ask  of  our  late  confederates  is  to 
let  us  alone.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  we  shall,  I  trust,  be  equal 
to  the  future  and  our  mission,  whether  they  choose  to  pursue 
toward  us  a  peace  or  a  war  policy. 

With  union,  harmony,  concert  of  action  and  patriotism,  our 
ultimate  success  in  establishing  or  rather  perpetuating  a  stable 
and  good  government  on  our  ancient  republican  model  need  not 
be  feared. 

One  good  and  wise  feature  in  our  new  or  revised  constitution  is, 
that  we  have  put  to  rest  the  vexed  question  of  slavery  forever,  so 
far  as  the  confederate  legislative  halls  are  concerned.  On  this 
subject,  from  which  sprung  the  immediate  cause  of  our  late  troubles 
and  threatened  dangers,  you  will  indulge  me  in  a  few  remarks  as 
not  irrelevant  to  the  occasion.  The  condition  of  the  negro  race 
amongst  us  presents  a  peculiar  phase  of  republican  civilization  and 
constitutional  liberty.  To  some,  the  problem  seems  hard  to  under 
stand.  The  difficulty  is  in  theory,  not  in  practical  demonstration  ; 
that  works  well  enough — theories  in  government,  as  in  all  things 
else,  must  yield  to  facts.  No  truth  is  clearer  than  that  the  best 
form  or  system  of  government  for  any  people  or  society  is  that 
which  secures  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness,  not  to  the  greatest 
number,  but  to  all  the  constituent  elements  of  that  society,  com 
munity  or  State.  If  our  s^ystem  does  not  accomplish  this ;  if  it 
is  not  the  best  for  the  negro  as  well  as  for  the  white  man ;  for 
the  inferior  as  well  as  the  superior  race,  it  is  wrong  in  principle. 
But  if  it  does,  or  is  capable  of  doing  this,  then  it  is  right,  and 
can  never  be  successfully  assailed  by  reason  or  logic.  That  the 
negroes  with  us,  under  masters  who  care  for,  provide  for  and 
protect  them,  are  better  off,  and  enjoy  more  of  the  blessings  of 
good  government  than  their  race  does  in  an}''  other  part  of  the 
world,  statistics  abundantly  prove.  As  a  race,  the  African  is 
inferior  to  the  white  man.  Subordination  to  the  white  man  is  his 
normal  condition.  He  is  not  his  equal  by  nature,  and  cannot  be 
made  so  by  human  laws  or  human  institutions.  Our  system, 
therefore,  so  far  as  regards  this  inferior  race,  rests  upon  this 
great  immutable  law  of  nature.  It  is  founded  not  upon  wrong 
or  injustice,  but  upon  the  eternal  fitness  of  things.  Hence,  its 
harmonious  working  for  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  both.  Why 
one  race  was  made  inferior  to  another,  is  not  for  us  to  inquire. 
The  statesman  and  the  Christian,  as  well  as  the  philosopher, 
must  take  things  as  they  find  them,  and  do  the  best  he  can  with 
them  as  he  finds  them. 

The  great  truth,  I  repeat,  upon  which  our  sj'stem  rests,  is  the 
inferiority  of  the  African.  The  enemies  of  our  institutions 
ignore  this  truth.  They*  set  out  with  the  assumption  that  the 
races  are  equal ;  that  the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white  man.  If 
their  premises  were  correct,  their  conclusions  would  be  legiti 
mate.  But  their  premises  being  false,  their  conclusions  are  false 
also.  Most  of  that  fanatical  spirit  at  the  North  on  this  subject, 


742    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

which  in  its  zeal  without  knowledge,  would  upturn  our  society 
and  lay  waste  our  fair  country,  springs  from  this  false  reasoning. 
Hence  so  much  misapplied  sympathy  for  fancied  wrongs  and 
sufferings.  These  wrongs  and  sufferings  exist  only  in  their  heated 
imaginations.  There  can  be  no  wrong  where  there  is  no  violation 
of  nature's  laws.  We  have  heard  much  of  the  higher  law.  I 
believe  myself  in  the  higher  law.  We  stand  upon  that  higher 
law.  I  would  defend  and  support  no  constitution  that  is  against 
the  higher  law.  I  mean  by  that  the  law  of  nature  and  of  God. 
Human  constitutions  and  human  laws  that  are  made  against  the 
law  of  nature  or  of  God,  ought  to  be  overturned ;  and  if  Seward 
was  right  the  constitution  which  he  was  sworn  to  support,  and  is 
now  requiring  others  to  swear  to  support,  ought  to  have  been 
overthrown  long  ago.  It  ought  never  to  have  been  made.  But 
in  point  of  fact  it  is  he  and  his  associates  in  this  crusade  against 
us,  who  are  warring  against  the  higher  law — we  stand  upon  the 
laws  of  the  Creator,  upon  the  highest  of  all  laws.  It  is  the  fana 
tics  of  the  North,  who  are  warring  against  the  decrees  of  God 
Almighty,  in  their  attempts  to  make  things  equal  which  he  made 
unequal.  .My  assurance  of  ultimate  success  in  this  controversy 
is  strong  from  the  conviction,  that  we  stand  upon  the  right. 
Some  years  ago  in  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  a 
very  prominent  gentleman  from  Ohio,  announced  with  a  great 
deal  of  effect,  that  we  at  the  South  would  be  obliged  to  yield 
upon  this  question  of  slavery,  because  we  warred  against  a 
principle  ;  and  that  it  was  as  impossible  to  war  successfully 
against  principle  in  politics  as  it  was  in  mechanics.  The  princi 
ple,  said  he,  would  ultimately  prevail.  He  announced  this  with 
imposing  effect,  and  endeavored  to  maintain  that  we  were  con 
tending  against  the  great  principle  of  equality  in  holding  our 
fellow  men  in  the  unnatural  condition  of  bondage.  In  reply,  I 
stated  to  him,  that  I  admitted  his  proposition  as  he  announced 
it,  that  it  was  impossible  to  war  successfully  against  a  principle 
in  mechanics  and  the  same  was  true  in  politics — the  principle 
would  certainly  prevail — and  from  that  stand  point  I  had  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  we  of  the  South  would  ultimately  succeed, 
and  the  North  would  be  compelled  to  yield  their  ideas  upon  this 
subject.  For  it  was  they  who  were  contending  against  a  princi 
ple  and  not  we.  It  was  they  who  were  trying  to  make  the  black 
man  a  white  man,  or  his  equal,  which  was  nearly  the  same  thing. 
The  controlling  laws  of  nature  regulate  the  difference  between 
them  as  absolutely  as  the  laws  of  gravitation  control  whatever 
comes  within  their  action — and  until  he  could  change  the  laws 
of  gravitation,  or  any  other  law  of  nature,  he  could  never  make 
the  negro  a  white  man  or  his  equal.  No  human  efforts  or  human 
laws  can  change  the  leopard's  spots  or  the  Ethiopian's  skin. 
These  are  the  works  of  Providence — in  whose  hands  are  the  for 
tunes  of  men  as  well  as  the  destiny  of  nations  and  the  distinc 
tions  of  races 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION.    743 

On  this  subject  a  change  is  evidently  going  on  in  the  intellec 
tual  world — in  the  republic  of  thinkers.  The  British  West 
India  experiment  has  done  much  to  produce  this  change.  All 
theories  on  the  problem  of  human  society  must  in  the  end  yield 
to  facts — just  as  all  theories  and  speculations  in  other  depart 
ments  of  science  must  yield  to  the  same  sure  and  unerring  test. 
The  changes  of  sentiment  upon  the  subject  of  negro  subordina 
tion  have  been  great  already,  for  this  is  the  proper  term  to  desig 
nate  his  condition  with  us.  That  they  will  continue  as  truth  pro 
gresses,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  All  new  truths  progress  slowly. 
With  us  this  change  of  view  and  sentiment  has  been  wonderful. 
There  has  been  almost  a  complete  revolution  within  the  last  half 
century.  It  was  a  question  little  understood  by  the  eminent 
statesmen  of  the  south  seventy  years  ago.  This  is  no  disparage 
ment  to  their  wisdom  or  ability.  They  were  occupied  in  the  so 
lution  of  other  great  new  truths  upon  which  rested  the  first 
great  principles  of  self-government  by  the  governing  race.  These 
principles  they  solved  and  established.  They  met  and  proved 
themselves  equal  to  the  exigencies  of  their  day  and  generation — 
that  was  enough  to  fill  the  measure  of  their  fame.  Each  genera 
tion  in  the  eternal  progress  of  all  things  connected  with 
existence,  must  meet  new  questions,  new  problems,  new  phases  of 
even  old  subjects,  and  it  will  be  enough  for  the  men  of  each  gen 
eration,  if  they  prove  themselves  equal  to  the  requirement  of  the 
times  in  which  they  live.  As  our  fathers  were  equal  to  all  the 
questions  of  their  day,  so  may  their  sons  be  at  this  and  all  suc 
ceeding  times.  This  is  the  point  to  which  our  attention  should 
be  chiefly  directed. 

In  our  constitution,  provision  is  made  for  the  admission  of 
other  States  into  the  confederacy  ;  but  none  can  be  admitted 
without  first  adopting  our  constitution,  and,  consequently,  none 
can  be  admitted  who  does  not  first  adopt  the  fundamental  princi 
ples  on  which  our  social  and  domestic  institutions  rest — thereby 
removing  forever  from  our  public  or  confederate  councils  that 
question  which  gave  rise  to  so  much  disturbance  in  the  old  gov 
ernment. 

I  have,  perhaps,  detained  you  much  longer  than  I  ought  to 
have  done,  and  upon  matters,  perhaps,  which  you  may  consider 
not  very  pertinent  to  the  object  of  my  mission.  This  you  will 
please  excuse.  As  I  said  in  the  outset,  I  appeared  before  yon 
upon  your  invitation  and  was  rather  at  a  loss  what  to  say,  until  I 
knew  more  of  your  own  objects  and  wishes — and  without,  there 
fore,  trespassing  further  upon  your  time  and  patience,  in  con 
clusion,  I  will  barely  add,  by  way  of  recapitulation,  the  main 
object,  then,  I  had  in  view  in  coming  before  you  to-day,  was 
simply  to  announce  that  our  government  hailed  with  joy  the  news 
of  your  secession  from  the  old  government,  and  a  desire  on  your 
part  to  form  an  alliance  with  us.  Our  government  is  very  desir 
ous  that  3rour  ancient  commonwealth  shall  become  a  member  of 


744    SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  VIRGINIA  SECESSION  CONVENTION. 

our  confederacy.  Your  interests  and  ours  are  the  same ;  your 
safety  the  same,  and  your  ultimate  destiny  must  be  the  same. 
\^e  are  looking  to  your  union  with  us  as  a  certainty.  But,  in 
the  meantime — before  that  union  can  be  perfected  by  the  action 
of  your  people,  we  think  a  temporary  alliance  or  convention  of 
the  highest  importance  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  day  and  the 
hour.  The  enemy  is  now  on  your  border — almost  at  your  door 
— he  must  be  met.  This  can  best  be  done  by  having  your  mili 
tary  operations  under  the  common  head  at  Montgomery — or  it 
may  be  at  Richmond.  For,  while  I  have  no  authority  to  speak 
on  that  subject,  I  feel  at  perfect  liberty  to  say,  that  it  is  quite 
within  the  range  of  probability  that,  if  such  an  alliance  is  made 
as  seems  to  me  ought  to  be  made,  the  seat  of  our  government 
will,  within  a  few  weeks,  be  moved  to  this  place.  There  is  no 
permanent  location  at  Montgomery — and  should  Virginia  become, 
as  it  probably  will,  the  theatre  of  the  war,  the  whole  may  be  trans 
ferred  here — then  all  your  military  operations  with  ours  will  be 
under  a  common  head.  Your  distinguished  commander-in-chief, 
(General  Lee,)  will,  doubtless,  have  such  a  position  as  his  great 
military  talents  and  merits  deserve.  Whether  in  the  Confederate 
army  proper,  or  in  the  State  service,  will,  I  doubt  not,  depend 
upon  his  own  choice.  The  great  object  is  to  have  perfect  union, 
harmony,  and  co-operation  under  one  head.  We  think  also  that 
it  is  better  for  you,  in  a  financial  point  of  view,  to  unite  with  us 
immediately.  Besides  this,  we  want  your  members  at  Montgom 
ery.  We  want  the  voice  of  Virginia  in  our  Confederate  councils. 

On  this  point,  I  would  suggest  to  you  that  this  convention  im 
mediately,  if  you  think  you  have  got  the  power,  appoint  dele 
gates  to  our  provisional  Congress.  My  opinion  is  you  have  got 
the  power.  You  may  have  to  refer  back  to  jour  constituents 
whatever  change  you  make  in  your  federal  relations  and  in  3rour 
State  constitution  ;  but  in  all  other  matters  you  have  plenary 
power.  You  certainly  have  full  power  to  send  delegates  to  the 
provisional  Congress. 

Is  it  not  expedient  that  you  should  send  members  immediately 
to  the  Congress  that  is  to  assemble  at  Montgomery  next  week  ? 
If  you  think  it  is  necessary  that  this  matter  should  be  decided 
by  the  people,  I  would  wait,  even  though  perils  threatened,  before 
I  would  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  But  at  all  events, 
I  wish  3Tou  to  understand  that  we  expect  you  to  join  us  just  as 
soon  as  you  can.  If  you  see  fit  to  make  an  alliance  offensive 
and  defensive,  we  will  have  our  military  here  just  as  soon  after 
the  alliance  is  concluded  as  possible.  We  want  you  to  join  us 
permanently  by  the  adoption  of  the  permanent  constitution, 
which  will  go  into  operation  next  winter,  and  of  course  it  will  be 
important  to  you  in  regard  to  the  elections,  that  you  change 
your  fundamental  law  so  far  as  relates  to  the  election  of  mem 
bers  to  the  southern  Congress  under  that  constitution. 

I  must  apologize  to  you  for  trespassing  so  long  upon  your 


VIRGINIA   ORDINANCE   OF   1861.  745 

patience.  I  have  said  so  much  in  a  desultory  way  that  I  have, 
I  fear,  overlooked  or  omitted  some  things  that  would  have  been 
more  appropriate  if  I  had  known  more  of  the  temper  and  views  of 
your  body.  But  this  is  a  time  for  free  conference  and  consulta 
tion  upon  the  general  state  of  public  affairs.  It  is  from  this 
eonviction-that  I  have  addressed  you  as  I  have.  You  are  no\v 
in  possession  of  my  views  very  fully  and  frankly.  It  may  be 
that  something  may  occur  that  may  render  it  proper  for  me  to 
appear  before  you  again.  In  any  discussions  tfyat  may  grow  out 
of  what  I  have  submitted,  I  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  confer 
with  you ;  and  if  this  body  should  decide  to  form  any  allianr^  or 
treaty  that  may  be  thought  proper,  such  as  I  have  intimated,  I 
will  be  found  ready  to  meet  them  or  any  number  that  may  be 
appointed  to  negotiate  with  me  on  the  subject.  I  am  alone,  and 
have  no  associate  ;  but  any  number  that  may  be  thought  best  on 
your  part  to  meet  me  can  be  appointed. 

If  you  desire  to  hear  from  me  on  any  other  point,  most  cheer 
fully  I  will  be  at  your  command. 


THE  CONVENTION  ENTERED  INTO  BETWEEN  VIR 
GINIA  AND  THE  CONFEDERACY,  AND  THE  ORDI 
NANCE  ADOPTING  IT,  RATIFIED  BY  THE  CON 
VENTION. 

On  the  23d  of  April,  1861,  Mr.  STEPHENS  addressed  the  Virgi 
nia  State  Convention,  and  the  following  is  the  result: 

PROVISIONAL  ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFEDERATE  CONSTITUTION  BY 

VIRGINIA. 

An  Ordinance  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Provi 
sional  Government  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America. 
We,  the  delegates  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  in  convention  as 
sembled,  solemnly  impressed  by  the  perils  which  surround  the 
commonwealth,  and  appealing  to  the  Searcher  of  Hearts  for  the 
rectitude  of  our  intentions  in  assuming  the  grave  responsibility 
of  this  act,  do,  by  this  ordinance,  adopt  and  ratify  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  provisional  government  of  the  Confederate  States  of 
America,  ordained  and  established  at  Montgomery,  Alabama,  on 
the  8th  of  February,  1861 ;  provided,  that  this  ordinance  shall 
cease  to  have  any  legal  operation  or  effect,  if  the  people  of  this 
commonwealth,  upon  the  vote  directed  to  be  taken  on  the  ordi 
nance  of  secession  passed  by  this  convention  on  the  17th  day  of 
April,  1861,  shall  reject  the  same. 

A  true  copy.  JOHN  L.  EUBANK,  Secretary. 

CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF  VIRGINIA  AND  THE 
CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

Tile  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  looking  to  a  speedy  union  of 
said  commonwealth  and  the  other  slave  States  with,  the  Confed 
erate  States  of  America,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  consti- 


746  VIRGINIA   ORDINANCE   OF   1861. 

tuition  for  the  provisional  government  of  said  States,  enters  into  the 
following  temporary  convention  and  agreement  with  said  States, 
for  the  purpose  of  meeting  pressing  exigencies  affecting  the  com 
mon  rights,  interests,  and  safety  of  said  commonwealth  and  said 
confederacy. 

1st.  Until  the  union  of  said  commonwealth  with  said  confed 
eracy  shall  be  perfected,  and  said  commonwealth  shall  become  a 
member  of  said  confederacy,  according  to  the  constitutions  of 
both  powers,  the,  whole  military  force  and  military  operations,  of 
fensive  and  defensive,  of  said  commonwealth,  in  the  impending 
conflict  with  the  United  States,  shall  be  under  the  chief  control 
and  direction  of  the  President  of  said  Confederate  States,  upon 
the  same  principles,  basis  and  footing  as  if  said  commonwealth 
were  now,  and  during  the  interval,  a  member  of  said  confederacy. 

2d.  The  commonwealth  of  Virginia  will,  after  the  consummation 
of  the  union  contemplated  in  this  convention,  and  her  adoption  of 
the  constitution  for  a  permanent  government  of  the  said  Confeder 
ate  States,  and  she  shall  become  a  member  of  said  confederacy  under 
said  permanent  constitution,  if  the  same  occur,  turn  over  to  the 
said  Confederate  States  all  the  public  property,  naval  stores,  and 
munitions  of  war,  etc.,  she  may  then  be  in  possession  of,  acquired 
from  the  United  States,  on  the  same  terms  and  in  like  manner  as 
the  other  States  of  said  confederacy  have  done  in  like  cases. 

3d.  Whatever  expenditures  of  money,  if  any,  said  common 
wealth  of  Virginia  shall  make  before  the  union,  under  the  provis 
ional  government  as  above  contemplated,  shall  be  consummated, 
shall  be  met  and  provided  for  by  said  Confederate  States. 

This  convention  entered  into  and  agreed  to,  in  the  city  of  Rich 
mond,  Virginia,  on  the  24th  day  of  April,  1861,  by  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  the  duly  authorized  commissioner,  to  act  in  the  matter 
for  the  said  Confederate  States,  and  John  Tyler,  William  Ballard 
Preston,  Samuel  McD.  Moore,  James  P.  Holcombe,  James  C. 
Bruce,  and  Lewis  E.  Harvie,  parties  duly  authorized  to  act  in 
like  manner  for  the  said  commonwealth  of  Virginia — the  whole 
subject  to  the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  proper  authorities 
of  both  governments  respectively. 

In  testimony  whereof,  the  parties  aforesaid  have  hereto  set  their 
hands  and  seals,  the  day  and  year  aforesaid,  and  at  the  place 
aforesaid,  in  duplicate  originals. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS,  [Seal.l 
Commissioner  for  Confederate  States. 


JOHN  TYLER, 
WM.  B.  PRESTON, 
S.  McD.  MOORE, 
JAS.  P.  HOLCOMBE, 
JAS.  C.  BRUCE, 
LEWIS  E.  HARVIE, 


Commis 
sioners 

for 
Virginia. 


Seal. 
Seal. 
Seal. 
Seal.l 
=Seal. 
Seal. 


Approved  and  ratified  by  the  convention  of  Virginia,  on  the 
25th  of  April,  1861.  JOHN  JANNEY,  President. 

JOHN  L.  EUBANK,  Secretary. 


LETTER  ON   MARTIAL   LAW.  747 


LETTER   TO   HON.  JAMES  M.   CALHOUN,  MAYOR  OF 
ATLANTA,  ON   THE    SUBJECT   OF   MARTIAL    LAW. 

RICHMOND,  VIRGINIA,  SEPTEMBER  STH,  1862. 

Hon.  James  M.  Calhoun,  Atlanta,  Ga : 

DEAR  SIR:— Your  letter  of  the  28th  nit.,  to  Hon.  B.  H.  Hill, 
was  submitted  to  me  by  him  a  few  clays  ago,  for  my  views  as  to 
the  proper  answer  to  be  made  to  your  several  inquiries  touching 
your  powers  and  duties  in  the  office  of  civil  governor  of  Atlanta, 
to  which  you  have  been  appointed  by  Gen.  Bragg.  I  took  the 
letter  with  the  promise  to  write  to  you  fully  upon  the  whole  sub 
ject.  This,  therefore,  is  the  object  of  my  now  writing  to  you. 
I  regret  the  delay  that  has  occurred  in  the  fulfilment  of  my  prom 
ise.  It  has  been  occasioned  by  the  press  of  other  engagements, 
and  I  now  find  my  time  too  short  to  write  as  fully  as  I  could 
wish.  The  subject  is  one  of  great  importance,  and  this,  as  well 
as  matters  of  a  kindred  sort,  have  given  me  deep  concern  for 
some  time  past. 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  at  your  being  at  a  loss  to  know  what 
your  powers  and  duties  are  in  your  new  position,  and  your  ina 
bility  to  find  any  thing  in  any  written  code  of  laws  to  enlighten 
you  upon  them.  The  truth  is  your  office  is  unknown  to  the  law. 
Gen.  Bragg  had  no  more  authority  for  appointing  you  civil  gov 
ernor  of  Atlanta,  than  I  had ;  and  I  had,  or  have,  no  more  author 
ity  than  any  street-walker  in  your  city.  Under  his  appointment, 
therefore,  you  can  rightfully  exercise  no  more  power  than  if  the 
appointment  had  been  made  by  a  street-walker. 

We  live  under  a  constitution.  That  constitution  was  made 
for  war  as  well  as  peace.  Under  that  constitution  we  have  civil 
laws  and  military  laws ;  laws  for  the  civil  authorities  and  laws 
for  the  military.  The  first  are  to  be  found  in  the  statutes  at 
large,  and  the  latter  in  the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  But  in  this 
country  there  is  no  such  thing  as  martial  law,  and  cannot  be  until 
the  constitution  is  set  aside — if  such  an  evil  day  shall  ever  come 
upon  us.  All  the  law-making  power  in  the  Confederate  States 
government  is  vested  in  Congress.  But  Congress  cannot  declare 
martial  law,  which  in  its  proper  sense  is  nothing  but  an  abroga 
tion  of  all  laws.  If  Congress  cannot  do  it,  much  less  can  any  offi 
cer  of  the  government,  either  civil  or  military,  do  it  rightfully, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest.  Congress  may,  in  certain  cases 
specified,  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  this  by  no  means 
interferes  with  the  administration  of  justice  so  far  as  to  deprive 
any  party  arrested  of  his  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial  by  a 
jury,  after  indictment,  etc.  It  does  not  lessen  or  weaken  the 
right  of  such  party  to  redress  for  an  illegal  arrest.  It  does  not 
authorize  arrests  except  upon  oath  or  affirmation  upon  probable 
cause.  It  only  secures  the  party  beyond  misadventure  to  appear 


748  LETTER   ON   MARTIAL   LAW. 

in  person  to  answer  the  charge,  and  prevents  a  release  in  conse 
quence  of  insufficiency  of  proof,  or  other  like  grounds,  in  any 
preliminary  inquiry  as  to  the  formality  or  legality  of  his  arrest. 
It  does  not  infringe  or  impair  his  other  constitutional  rights. 
These  Congress  cannot  impair  by  law.  The  constitutional  guar 
antees  are  above  and  beyond  the  reach  or  power  of  Congress,  and 
much  more,  if  it  could  be,  above  and  beyond  the  power  of  any 
officer  of  the  government.  Your  appointment,  therefore,  in  my 
opinion,  is  simply  a  nullity.  You,  by  virtue  of  it,  possess  no 
rightful  authority ;  and  can  exercise  none.  The  order  creating 
you  civil  governor  of  Atlanta,  was  a  most  palpable  usurpation. 
I  speak  of  the  act  only  in  a  legal  and  constitutional  sense — not 
of  the  motives  that  prompted  it.  But  a  wise  people,  jealous  of 
their  rights,  would  do  well  to  remember,  as  Delolme  so  well  ex 
pressed  it,  that  "  such'acts,  so  laudable  when  we  only  consider 
the  motive  of  them,  make  a  breach  at  which  tyranny  will  one  day 
enter,"  if  quietly  submitted  to  too  long.  Now,  then,  my  opinion 
is,  if  any  one  be  brought  before  you  for  punishment  for  selling 
liquor  to  a  soldier,  or  any  other  allegation,  where  there  is  no  law 
against  it,  no  law  passed  by  the  proper  law-making  power,  either 
State  or  Confederate,  and  where,  as  a  matter  of  course,  you  have 
no  legal  or  rightful  authority  to  punish  either  by  fine,  or  corpore 
ally,  etc.,  you  should  simply  make  this  response-  to  the  one  who 
brings  him  or  her,  as  the  case  may  be,  that  you  have  no  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  matter  complained  of. 

A  British  queen  (Anne)  was  once  urged  by  the  emperor  of 
Russia  to  punish  one  of  her  officers  for  what  his  majesty  consid 
ered  an  act  of  indignity  to  his  ambassador  to  her  court,  though 
the  officer  had  violated  no  positive  law.  The  queen's  memorable 
reply  was  that  "  she  could  inflict  no  punishment  upon  any,  the 
meanest  of  her  subjects,  unless  warranted  by  the  law  of  the 
land." 

This  is  an  example  you  might  well  imitate.  For  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  no  one  will  pretend  that  any  general  in  command  of 
our  armies,  could  confer  upon  you  or  anybody  greater  power  than 
the  ruling  sovereign  of  England  possessed  in  like  cases  under 
similar  circumstances.  The  case  referred  to  in  England  gave  rise 
to  a  change  of  the  law.  After  that  an  act  was  passed  exempting 
foreign  ministers  from  arrest.  So  with  us.  If  the  proper  disci 
pline  and  good  order  of  the  army  require  that  the  sale  of  liquor 
to  a  soldier  by  a  person  not  connected  with  the  army  should  be 
prohibited  (which  I  do  not  mean  to  question  in  the  slightest  de 
gree)  let  the  prohibition  be  declared  b^y  law,  passed  by  Congress, 
with  the  pains  and  penalties  for  a  violation  of  it,  with  the  mode 
and  manner  of  trying  the  offence  plainly  set  forth.  Until  this  is 
done,  no  one  has  any  authority  to  punish  in  such  cases ;  and  any 
one  who  undertakes  to  do  it  is  a  trespasser  and  a  violator  of  the 
law.  Soldiers  in  the  service,  as  well  as  the  officers,  are  subject 
to  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War,  and  if  they  commit  any  offence 


ADDRESS  AT   CRAWFORDVILLE.  749 

known  to  the  military  code  therein  prescribed,  they  are  liable  to 
be  tried,  and  punished  according  to  the  law  made  for  their  gov 
ernment.  If  these  Rules  and  Articles  of  War,  or  in  other  words, 
if  the  military  code  for  the  government  of  the  army  is  defective 
in  any  respect,  it  ought  to  be  amended  by  Congress.  There 
alone  the  power  is  vested.  Neither  generals  nor  the  provost- 
marshals  have  any  power  to  make,  alter  or  modify  laws  either 
military  or  civil ;  nor  can  they  declare  what  shall  be  crimes, 
either  military  or  civil,  or  establish  any  tribunal  to  punish  what 
they  may  so  declare  All  these  matters  belong  to  Congress ; 
and  I  assure  you,  in  my  opinion,  nothing  is  more  essential  to  the 
maintenance  and  preservation  of  constitutional  liberty  than  that 
the  military  be  ever  kept  subordinate  to  the  civil  authorities. 
You  thus  have  my  views  hastily  but  pointly  given. 
Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  THE  SUBSTANCE  OF  THE  ADDRESS 
OF  VICE-PRESIDENT  STEPHENS,  AT  CRAWFORD- 
YILLE,  GEORGIA,  ON  THE  IST  OF  NOYEMBER,  1862. 
REPORTED  BY  J.  HENLEY  SMITH. 

Mr.  Stephens  commenced  by  announcing  the  meeting  to  be 
one  eminently  of  a  business  character.  Many  in  the  lar^e 
assembly  had,  perhaps,  come  out  to  hear  something  about  the 
war,  looking  upon  it  as  a  war  meeting.  This,  also,  was  true.  It 
was  a  war  meeting  as  well  as  a  business  meeting.  Much  the 
greater  part  of  war  was  business — practical  good  sense — common 
every  day  business,  such  as  marks  the  true  economy  of  life.  The 
raising  of  men — the  manoeuvring  of  troops  in  the  field,  their 
bravery  and  gallantry  in  action  and  the  best  of  generalship  as 
commonly  understood,  constitute  but  a  small  part  of  war.  It  is 
an  essential  part,  and  not  to  be  underestimated,  but  it  is  a  small 
part.  Like  the  sulphur  in  gunpowder — only  a  twelfth  part  and 
a  fraction — it  is  a  small  part  of  the  whole.  To  wage  successful 
wars,  there  must  not  only  be  men  well  trained  and  skilfully 
handled  with  efficient  weapons,  but  they  must  be  clothed  and  fed. 
This  embraces  the  quartermaster  and  commissary  departments 
in  all  their  ramifications.  This  is  much  the  larger  part  of  war. 
The  want  of  a  nail  in  a  horseshoe  caused  the  lameness  of  a 
horse  that  caused  the  loss  of  a  battle.  A  pair  of  shoes  is  as 
essential  to  a  soldier  as  a  lock  to  his  gun  ;  and,  to-day,  fifty  thou 
sand  pairs  of  shoes  are  equal  to  fifty  thousand  men  in  our  army. 
We  have  sent  the  men — they  are  now  in  the  field — the  object  of 
the  present  meeting  was  to  see  that  those  who  have  gone  from 
our  midst  are  clothed  and  shod. 

This,  it  is  true,  properly  belongs  to  the  government.    It  is  the 


750  ADDRESS  AT   CKAWFORDVILLE. 

duty  of  the  government  to  see  that  all  who  are  called  to  the 
field  are  properly  equipped  with  every  thing  necessary  to 
make  them  efficient ;  and  the  government  is,  doubtless  doing 
all  it  can. 

But  this  is  emphatically  a  war  for  the  people's  rights,  and  it  is 
snough  for  us  to  know  that  ample  provision  is  not  made  by  the 
government.  The  object  of  the  meeting  was  to  see  to  it  that  all 
the  men  from  this  (Taliaferro)  county  be  provided  with  necessary 
shoes  and  clothing.  The  original  plan  heretofore  acted  upon  in 
the  county,  was  for  some  one  to  take  particular  soldiers  under 
their  charge  and  see  that  they  were  provided  for.  This  was  the 
best  plan,  and  he  hoped  it  would  be  continued.  Then  none 
would  be  overlooked.  He  had  lists  of  all  the  companies  fully 
organized  and  sent  from  the  county.  These  lists  he  should  read 
over,  and  as  each  name  was  called  he  wished  it  to  be  announced 
by  some  one  whether  provisions  by  any  one  had  been  made  for 
the  one  whose  name  should  be  called. 

[Here  the  lists  were  read  over  and  responses  made  at  the  call 
of  the  name  of  each  one  known  to  be  •provided  for.  It  was 
gratifying  to  perceive  that  a  majority  were  already  provided  for.] 

Mr.  Stephens  continued :  Doubtless  many  of  those  for  whom 
110  response  has  been  made,  are  also  provided  for  by  persons  not 
present ;  but  as  some  might  not  be,  and  all  should  be,  he  pro 
posed  that  'an  executive  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to 
thoroughly  canvass  the  county,  by  themselves  and  sub-agents  to 
be  appointed  by  them,  and  ascertain  the  number  and  names  of 
every  one  who  was  not  provided  for,  and,  by  contributions  to  be 
raised  by  them,  to  have  the  provision  made. 

Besides  these  companies  there  were  quite  a  number  of  volun 
teers  from  the  county  in  several  other  companies.  Let  all  from 
the  county  be  seen  after — no  one  omitted — in  whatever  com 
pany  he  may  be.  Let  an  agent,  or  as  many  as  may  be  necessary, 
be  appointed  by  the  executive  committee,  to  carry  the  articles 
when  ready,  and  deliver  them  to  the  parties.  Don't  trust  them 
to  any  public  agents  for  transportation.  The  only  certain  way 
for  speed  and  safety  was  for  some  one  to  accompany  them.  The 
government  would  doubtless  furnish  transportation.  It  ought 
to  be  done,  and  he  supposed  would  be  done.  But  if  not,  let  the 
executive  committee  see  to  it  that  the  articles  were  delivered. 

This  part  of  the  proceedings  having  been  gone  through  with, 
Mr.  Stephens  then  made  strong  appeals  to  all,  to  contribute  in 
money  or  in  kind  to  supply  those  who  might  be  found  by  the 
committee  to  be  not  provided  for.  Those  who  had  sons,  brothers, 
or  others  for  whom  the}'  had  made  provision,  would  not  be  expected 
to  do  more  than  they  had  done,  unless  their  means  were  ample, 
in  which  case  they  ought  to  contribute  liberally.  The  ladies 
would  cheerfully  make  up  the  clothing,  if  the  cloth  were  fur 
nished.  Nobly  have  they  done  their  part  in  this  war.  The  battle 
field  was  not  their  place,  but  in  their  sphere  they  had  done  that 


ADDRESS  AT  CRAWFORDVILLE.  751 

•which  was  just  as  essential  to  the  success  of  our  cause,  as  the  man 
who  had  won  honor  and  glory  on  the  field.  With  the  spindle, 
the  loom,  the  needle,  and  in  the  hospital,  willingly,  liberally,  gen 
erously,  patriotically,  had  they  clone  their  duty.  The  men  of  our 
country  had  done  well — most  gallantly — but  let  it  never  be  for 
gotten,  that  as  well  as  the  men  have  done  in  the  cause  of  our 
independence,  the  women  have  done  better.  To  them  the  country 
is  mainly  indebted  for  the  clothing  of  the  army  when  it  first  went 
into  the  field.  Their  voluntary  contributions  of  labor  amounted  to 
many  millions  of  dollars,  worth  infinitely  more  than  the  money  in 
dollars  and  cents,  if  the  government  had  had  it ;  for  the  money  could 
not  have  commanded  the  labor.  An  army  of  hundreds  of  thou 
sands  was  improvised,  springing  into  existence  fully  armed  and 
equipped,  as  Minerva  from  the  head  of  Jove.  Such  a  spectacle 
the  world  never  saw  before.  This  was  done  solely  by  the  aid  of 
the  women  of  the  land.  It  could  not  have  been  done  without 
their  aid.  They  did  well  to  be  at  the  meeting  j  for  they  are  as 
willing  to  do  their  part  now,  and  in  the  future,  as  they  were  in 
the  beginning. 

In  his  appeal  for  contributions,  he  alluded  to  those  whose  pur 
suits,  positions,  or  opportunities  had  enabled  them  to  make  money 
in  these  times.  Opportunities  to  realize  unusual  profits  upon 
labor  or  capital  in  particular  pursuits  or  trades,  were  incidents 
of  all  wars,  and  this  one  was  no  exception.  These  were  evils  of 
war.  They  afford  great  temptations  to  frail  human  nature. 
These  temptations  should  be  resisted  by  every  one  as  the 
approaches  of  the  foul  fiend. 

Dickens  had  said  the  fumes  of  gold  were  more  deadly  to  the 
moral  sensibilities  than  the  fumes  of  charcoal  to  the  physical.  It 
was  true  none  should  think  of  making  money  or  growing  rich  out 
of  our  common  necessities ;  but  every  one  should  feel  and  realize 
the  fact  that* our  common  all  is  embarked  in  the  common  cause ; 
that  every  thing  is  at  stake,  and  every  one  should  do  his  duty  and 
his  whole  duty,  whether  at  home  or  in  the  field.  Those  at  home,  in 
whatever  position,  have  as  important  and  as  essential — though  not 
so  hard  and  dangerous — duties  to  perform  as  those  in  the  field.  All 
should  co-operate  harmoniously  and  patriotically  to  the  great  end, 
and  while  they  (the  people  of  that  community)  had  none  among 
them  known  as  speculators  or  extortioners,  yet  there  were  some 
whose  pursuits  enabled  them  or  afforded  them  opportunities  to 
realize  larger  profits  on  their  capital  and  labor  than  in  times  of 
peace.  To  such  he  made  a  special  appeal  to  contribute  liberally 
and  generously,  as  he  believed  they  would.  Let  no  one,  whether 
body  corporate  or  not,  think  of  making  profits  out  of  articles 
needed  by  the  men  in  the  field.  The  idea  was  abhorrent. 

On  the  general  subject  of  our  present  conflict,  involving  as  it 
does  our  individual  as  well  as  State  existence,  he  said  all  wars 
were  calamities — the  greatest  that  can  befall  a  people,  except, 
perhaps,  direct  visitations  from  Providence,  such  as  famines, 


752  ADDRESS  AT   CBAWFORDVILLE. 

plagues,  and  pestilence.  The  greater  the  war,  the  greater  the 
calamity.  This  war  is  a  great  calamity  to  us.  We  all  feel  it.  It 
is  the  greatest  war,  and  waged  on  the  largest  scale  of  any  since 
the  birth  of  Christ,  the  history  of  the  world — not  excepting 
the  crusades — furnishing  no  parallel  to  it  in  the  present  era. 

The  responsibility  and  guilt  of  it  must  be  fearful  somewhere. 
As  great  calamities  as  wars  are,  they  are,  however,  sometimes  ne 
cessary.  Often  forced  by  the  highest  dictates  of  patriotism — like 
"  offences  "  we  are  told  of — they  sometimes  needs  come.  They 
are,  however,  never  right  or  justifiable  on  both  sides.  They  may 
be  wrong  on  both  sides,  but  can  never  be  right  on  both.  Unjust 
wars,  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  civilized  men,  are  held  as  the}7 
should  be,  in  condemnation  and  reprobation.  People,  therefore, 
as  well  as  their  rulers,  to  whom  such  high  trusts  are  confided, 
should  look  well  to  it,  and  see  that  they  are  right  before  appeal 
ing  to  this  last  and  most  terrific  arbitrament  of  arms. 

Some  thoughts  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Stephens  said,  might  not 
be  out  of  place,  even  there.  These  he  dwelt  upon  at  some  length, 
showing  the  justice  of  our  cause  and  the  wanton  aggression  of  the 
enemy.  He  traced  the  history  of  the  controversy  between  the 
southern  and  northern  States,  the  principles  and  nature  of  our  gov 
ernment,  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  the 
right  of  each  to  control  its  own  destinies  and  act  for  itself  in  the 
last  resort,  as  each  State  might  think  best  for  itself.  It  was  wholly 
immaterial,  he  said,  in  considering  the  question  of  right  and  jus 
tice,  now  to  look  any  further  than  the  solemn  act  of  the  States  of 
the  South,  after  mature  deliberation,  each  acting  for  itself  in  its 
sovereign  capacity.  Each  State  had  the  right  thus  to  act,  and 
when  each  for  itself  had  thus  acted,  no  power  on  earth  had  the 
right  justly  to  gainsay  it. 

The  old  Union  was  formed  by  the  States,  each  acting  for  itself  in 
its  sovereign  character  and  capacity  with  the  objeclTand  purpose 
of  advancing  their  interests  respectively  thereby.  Each  State  was 
the  sole  judge  in  the  last  resort,  whether  the  future  interest,  safety 
and  well-being  of  her  people,  required  her  to  resume  those  sove 
reign  powers,  the  exercise  of  which  had  been  delegated  to  other 
hands  under  the  old  compact  of  Union.  These  principles  have 
ever  been  held  not  only  true,  but  sacred,,  with  the  friends  of  con 
stitutional  liberty  in  all  the  States  since  the  old  Union  was 
formed.  They  rest  upon  that  fundamental  principle  set  forth  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  all  governments  "  derive 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  The  States 
South,  therefore,  had  done  nothing  but  what  was  their  right — 
their  inalienable  right  to  do,  the  same  as  their  ancestors  did,  in 
common  with  the  North,  when  they  severed  their  connection  with 
the  British  government. 

This  war  was  waged  by  the  North  in  denial  of  this  right,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  conquest  and  subjugation.  It  was,  therefore, 
aggressive,  wanton  and  unjust.  Such  must  be  the  judgment  of 


ADDRESS  AT   CBAWFORDVILLE.  753 

mankind,  let  its  results  be  what  they  may.  The  responsibility, 
therefore,  for  all  its  sacrifices  of  treasure  and  blood,  heretofore, 
or  hereafter  to  be  made  in  its  prosecution,  rests  not  upon  us. 

Mr.  Stephens  said  that  soon  after  the  first  battle  of  Manassas, 
duty  called  him  to  our  camps  near  that  point.  He  went  over  the 
ground  on  which  that  conflict  had  taken  place.  The  evidences  of 
the  late  terrible  strife  were  still  fresh  and  visible  all  around.  The 
wide-spread  desolation,  the  new-made  graves,  and  the  putrid  ani 
mal  remains  not  yet  removed  by  the  vultures,  fully  attested  what 
a  scene  of  blood  it  had  been.  While  surveying  the  hills  and  de 
files  over  which  the  various  columns  of  our  men  and  the  enemy 
passed  and  were  engaged  on  that  memorable  day,  amongst  many 
other  things  that  crowded  themselves  upon  his  mind,  were  two 
dying  expressions  reported  to  have  been  uttered  in  the  midst  of 
the  battle.  One  was  b}^  a  soldier  on  the  side  of  the  enemy,  who, 
fallen  and  weltering  in  his  blood,  exclaimed,  "  My  God  1  what  is 
all  this  for?"  The  other  was  by  the  lamented  Bartow,  who  said, 
"Boys,  they  have  killed  me,  but  never  give  it  up."  These  two 
exclamations  were  made  at  no  great  distance  apart,  and  perhaps 
near  the  same  time. 

"  What  is  all  this  for  ?"  Mr.  Stephens  said  he  could  but  think 
the  question  was  pertinent  to  both  sides,  and  most  pertinent  from 
him  who  uttered  it,  addressed  to  all  his  invading  comrades  and 
those  who  sent  them.  Well  might  he  there,  in  the  agonies  of 
death,  in  the  din  and  dust  of  strife,  in  the  clangor  of  arms  and 
the  thunder  of  artillery,  ask,  "  What  is  all  this  for  ?"  Why  this 
array  of  armies  ?  Why  this  fierce  meeting  in  mortal  combat  ? 
What  is  all  this  carnage  and  slaughter  for  ?  The  same  question 
is  still  as  pertinent  to  those  who  are  waging  this  war  against  us, 
as  it  was  then.  Why  the  prolongation  of  this  conflict  ?  Why 
this  immense  sacrifice  of  life  in  camp,  and  the  numerous  battles 
that  have  been  fought  since  ?  Wiry  this  lamentation  and  mourn 
ing  going  up  from  almost  every  house  and  family  from  Maine  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  and  from  the  Atlantic  and  Gulf  to  the  lakes, 
for  friends  and  dear  ones  who  have  fallen  by  disease  and  violence 
in  this  unparalleled  struggle  ?  The  question,  if  replied  to  by  the 
North,  can  have  but  one  true  answer.  What  is  all  this  for  on 
their  part,  but  to  overturn  the  principle  upon  which  their  own 
government,  as  wTell  as  ours,  is  based — to  reverse  the  doctrine 
that  governments  derive  their  "just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed  ?"  What  is  it  for  but  to  overturn  the  principles 
and  practice  of  their  own  government  from  the  beginning.  That 
government  was  founded  and  based  upon  the  political  axiom 
that  all  States  and  people  have  the  inalienable  right  to  change 
their  forms  of  government  at  will. 

This  principle  was  acted  on  in  the  recognition  by  the  United 

States  of  the  South  American  republics.     It  was  the  principle 

acted  on  in  the  recognition  of  Mexico.     It  was  acted  on  in  the 

straggle  of  Greece,  to  overthrow  the  Ottoman  rule.     On  that 

48 


754  ADDEESS  AT   CBAWFOEDVILLE. 

question  the  greatest  constitutional  expounder  of  the  North,  Mr. 
Webster,  gained  his  first  laurels  as  an  American  statesman. 
This  principle  was  acted  on  in  the  recognition  Of  the  government 
of  Louis  Phillippe,  on  the  overthrow  of  Charles  X.  of  France,  and 
again  in  the  recognition  of  the  Lamartine  government  on  the 
overthrow  of  Louis  Phillippe  in  1848.  At  that  time  every  man 
at  the  North  in  Congress,  save  one,  Mr.  Stephens  believed,  voted 
for  the  principle.  The  same  principle  was  again  acted  upon  with 
out  dissent  in  1852,  in  the  recognition  of  the  government  of  Louis 
Napoleon.  The  same  principle  was  acted  upon  in  the  recogni 
tion  of  Texas,  when  she  seceded  or  withdrew  from  the  govern 
ment  of  Mexico. 

Many  at  the  North  opposed  the  admission  of  Texas,  as  a  State 
in  our  then  Union.  But  there  was  little,  if  any,  opposition  to 
her  recognition  as  an  independent  outside  republic.  Strange  to 
say,  many  of  those'  who  were  then  fiercest  in  their  opposition  to 
Texas  coming  into  the  Union,  are  now  the  fiercest  in  their  denial 
of  the  unquestioned  right  acknowledged  to  her  before.  Well 
may  any  and  every  one,  North  or  South,  exclaim,  what  is  all  this 
for  ?  What  have  we  done  to  the  North  ?  When  have  we  ever 
wronged  them  ?  We  quit  them,  it  is  true,  as  our  ancestors  and 
their  ancestors  quit  the  British  government.  We  quit  as  they 
quit,  upon  a  question  of  constitutional  right.  That  question  they 
determined  for  themselves,  and  we  have  but  done  the  same. 
What,  therefore,  is  all  this  for?  Why  this  war  on  their  part 
against  the  uniform  principles  and  practices  of  their  own  govern 
ment  ?  There  is  but  one  plausible  pretext  for  it ;  that  is  to  ex 
terminate  our  southern  institutions.  It  is  to  put  the  African  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  man.  It  is  to  conquer  and  subjugate 
independent  and  sovereign  States,  who  deny  their  authority  right 
fully  to  rule  over  them.  It  is  a  war,  in  short,  on  their  part, 
against  right,  against  reason,  against  justice,  against  nature. 

If  asked,  on  our  side,  what  is  all  this  for  ?*  The  reply  from 
every  breast  is,  that  it  is  for  home,  for  firesides,  for  our  altars, 
for  our  birthrights,  for  property,  for  honor,  for  life — in  a  word,  for 
ever}^  thing  for  which  freemen  should  live,  and  for  which  all 
deserving  to  be  freemen  should  be  willing,  if  need  be,  to  die. 

On  the  present  condition  and  prospect  of  our  affairs,  Mr.  Ste 
phens  said  he  had  nothing  new  to  say,  and  nothing  that  was  not 
known  to  all.  From  the  past  we  had  nothing  to  be  discouraged 
for  the  future.  We  had  met  with  some  reverses,  but  of  eighteen 
months  fighting,  we  had  lost  no  great  battle.  We  had  gained 
many  brilliant  victories.  The  aggregate  of  advantage  of  the  fight 
on  land  thus  far  had  been  decidedly  on  our  side.  This  was  no 
small  consideration  for  hope  and  encouragement,  looking  at  the 
odds  against  us.  At  the  beginning  the  enemy  had  all  the  army, 
all  the  navy,  all  the  revenue,  all  the  credit,  as  well  as  the  prestige 
of  the  name  of  the  old  government,  on  their  side.  We  were  few 
in  number  compared  with  them;  without  a  regiment  or  a  ship, 


ADDRESS  AT   CKAWFORDVILLE.  755 

without  a  dollar,  and  without  credit  except  such,  as  the  righteous 
ness  of  our  cause  inspired  in  the  breasts  of  our  own  people 
secured.  Thus  we  entered  the  contest,  and  thus  we  have  main 
tained  it.  At  first  75,000  men  were  thought  sufficient  to  con 
quer  us.  This  failing,  600,000  were  called  to  the  field.  These, 
too,  failing,  600,000  more  have  been  added,  with  a  view  to  crush 
us  out  with  numbers.  Judging  from  indications,  the  enemy  seem 
determined  to  put  forth  all  their  power.  This  is  the  present 
prospect.  We  should  be  prepared  to  meet  it  to  the  best  of  our 
ability.  No  one  should  despair  or  even  despond  from  this  array 
of  new  forces  to  be  brought  against  us.  We  may  not  be  able  to 
match  them  in  numbers.  We  are  not  able  to  do  it,  and  should 
not  attempt  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  do  it,  to  secure  ultimate 
success,  if  we  avail  ourselves  of  our  advantages  properly  and 
wisely.  Numbers  is  one  advantage  the  enemy  has,  and  had  from 
the  beginning.  We  have  advantages  on  our  side  which  we  should 
avail  ourselves  of.  Frederick  of  Prussia  fought  all  the  great 
neighboring  powers  of  Europe  for  seven  years  and  was  success 
ful  in  the  end.  The  greatest  number  he  could  bring  into  the  field 
was  200,000  against  600,000.  With  this  disparity  of  three  to  one, 
they  thought  they  could  crush  him,  but  they  did  not.  It  is  true, 
his  country  was  overrun,  and  his  capital,  Berlin,  was  twice  taken 
and  sacked  during  the  war.  He,  however,  did  not  give  it  up. 
Richmond  has  not  yet  been  taken,  though  three  powerful  onward 
movements  have  been  made  against  it.  If  Richmond  should  yet 
fall,  and  twice  fall,  we  should  be  no  worse  off  than  Prussia  was*  in 
a  like  calamity ;  nor  should  we  be  less  disposed  than  the  great 
Frederick  to  give  it  up  for  a  like  cause. 

The  war  of  our  first  independence  lasted  seven  years.  During 
that  struggle,  several  of  the  States  were  overrun,  occupied  and 
held  for  long  periods  by  the  enemy.  The  men  of  that  "  day  that 
tried  men's  souls"  felt  no  inclination,  on  that  account,  to  "give 
it  up."  Philadelphia,  their  capital,  was  taken,  but  they  did  not 
"  give  it  up,"  or  think  of  giving  up  the  cause.  They  fought  on, 
as  we  can,  for  the  same  principles  and  rights,  until  final  success. 
Nor  have  our  suffering  or  sacrifices,  as  great  as  they  are,  been 
any  thing  like  as  severe  as  theirs  were.  If  they  suffered  and  bore 
with  patience  and  fortitude  all  they  did  to  acquire  and  establish 
principles  so  dear  to  them  and  to  us,  well  may  we,  with  equal 
patience  and  fortitude,  bear  all  now  upon  us,  and  all  that  may 
hereafter  await  us,  to  maintain  them. 

The  ability  of  a  people  to  support  and  wage  war  depends 
partly  upon  their  resources,  and  partly  upon  the  skill  and 
economy  with  which  they  are  wielded.  We  have  resources — ele 
ments  of  power  to  wage  war  successfully,  unknown  to  Frederick 
or  the  men  of  '76.  All  necessaries  of  life,  food  and  clothing, 
with  the  materials  and  munitions  of  war,  can,  with  skill  and  fore 
cast,  be  made  and  supplied  within  ourselves.  This  goodly  land 
of  ours  is  unequalled,  or  at  least  unsurpassed  by  any  other 


756  ADDRESS  AT   CRAWFORD VILLE. 

part  of  the  habitable  globe  in  the  character  and  variety  of  its 
natural  products,  suited  to  man's  needs  and  wants  in  every 
emergency.  Its  mineral  resources  are  also  inexhaustible.  It 
is  a  land  well  worth  fighting  for.  Our  means  are  sufficient ; 
they  have  only  to  be  properly  and-  skilfully  developed  and 
applied. 

But  besides  the  products  necessary  to  sustain  ourselves,  to 
support  our  armies,  and  carry  on  war,  we  have  another  element 
of  tremendous  power,  if  properly  used  and  applied — a  resource 
and  power  unknown  in  European  wars,  and  unknown  to  our  an 
cestors  in  the  war  of  their  revolution.  Mr.  Stephens  here  said 
he  alluded  to  our  great  staple,  cotton  ;  and  he  should  not  have 
said  more  upon  it  at  this  time,  than  barety  to  ask  those  present  to 
call  to  their  minds  what  he  had  said  to  most  of  them  last  year  upon 
that  subject,  when  he  addressed  them  upon  the  cotton  loan,  but 
for  some  misconceptions  that  had  got  in  the  public  mind  from  a 
paragraphic  report  of  some  remarks  he  made  at  a  meeting  lately 
in  Sparta.  Some,  from  that  report,  said  Mr.  Stephens,  have  taken 
the  idea  that  I  urged  upon  the  planters  there,  to  plant  largely 
of  cotton  next  year.  Allow  me  in  this  connection  to  say,  that 
nothing  could  be  further  from  the  fact.  I  urged  upon  the 
planters  there,  first  and  above  all,  to  grow  grain  and  stock  for 
home  consumption  and  to  supply  the  army.  What  I  said  at 
Sparta  upon  the  subject  of  cotton,  many  of  you  have  often 
heard  me  say  in  private  conversation,  and  most  of  you,  in  the 
public  speech  last  year,  to  which  I  alluded.  Cotton,  I  have 
maintained,  and  do  maintain,  is  one  of  the  greatest  elements  of 
power,  if  not  the  greatest  at  our  command,  if  it  were  but  prop 
erly  and  efficiently  used  as  it  might  have  been  and  still  might  be, 
Samson's  strength  was  in  his  locks.  Our  strength  is  in  our 
locks — not  of  hair  or  wool,  but  in  our  locks  of  cotton.  I  believed 
from  the  beginning  that  the  enemy  would  inflict  upon  us  more 
serious  injury  by  the  blockade  than  by  all  other  means  combined. 
It  was,  in  the  judgment  of  all,  a  matter  of  the  utmost,  if  not 
vital  importance  to  have  it  raised,  removed  or  broken  up.  How 
was  it  to  be  done  ?  That  was  and  is  the  question.  It  was 
thought  by  many  that  such  was  the  demand  for  cotton  in  Eng 
land,  that  she  would  disregard  the  blockade,  as  it  was,  and  has 
been  all  along,  not  within  the  terms  of  the  Paris  agreement,  that 
is,  has  not  been,  at  any  time,  entirely  effectual,  though  close  enough 
to  do  us  great  injury.  I  did  not  concur  in  this  opinion,  as  most 
of  you  well  know.  I  thought  it  would  have  to  be  done  by  our 
selves,  and  could  be  done  through  the  agency  of  cotton — not  as 
a  political,  but  as  a  commercial  and  financial  power.  I  was  in 
favor,  as  you  know,  of  the  government's  taking  all  the  cotton 
that  would  be  subscribed  for  eight  per  cent,  bonds  at  a  rate  or 
price  as  high  as  ten  cents  a  pound.  Two  millions  of  the  last 
year's  crop  might  have  been  counted  upon  as  certain  on  this  plan 
This,  at  ten  cents,  with  bags  of  the  average  commercial  weight, 


ADDRESS  AT   CRAWFORD VILLE.  757 

would  have  cost  the  government  one  hundred  millions  of  bonds, 
With  this  amount  of  cotton  in  hand  and  pledged,  any  number, 
short  of  fifty,  of  the  best  iron-clad  steamers  could  have  been  con 
tracted  for  and  built  in  Europe — steamers  at  the  cost  of  two 
millions  each  could  be  procured  every  way  equal  to  the  Monitor. 
Thirty  millions  would  have  got  fifteen  of  these,  which  might  have 
been  enough  for  our  purpose.  Five  might  have  been  ready  by 
the  first  of  January  last  to  open  some  one  of  the  ports  blockaded 
on  our  coast.  Three  of  these  could  have  been  left  to  keep  the 
port  open,  and  two  could  have  convoyed  the  cotton  across  the 
water  if  necessary.  Thus,  the  debt  could  have  been  promptly 
paid  with  cotton  at  a  much  higher  price  than  it  cost,  and  a 
channel  of  trade  kept  open  till  others,  and  as  many  more  as 
necessary,  might  have  been  built  and  paid  for  in  the  same  way. 
At  a  cost  of  less  than  one  month's  present  expenditure  on  our 
army,  our  coast  might  have  been  cleared.  Besides  this,  at  least, 
two  more  millions  of  bales  of  the  old  crop  on  hand  might  have 
been  counted  on — this  with  the  other  making  a  debt  in  round 
numbers  to  the  planters  of  $200,000,000.  But  this  cotton,  held  in 
Europe  until  its  price  shall  be  fifty  cents  a  pound,  would  consti 
tute  a  fund  of  at  least  $1,000,000,000,  which  would  not  only  have 
kept  our  finances  in  sound  condition,  but  the  clear  profit  of 
$800,000,000  would  have  met  the  entire  expenses  of  the  war  for 
years  to  come. 

In  this  way  cotton,  as  a  great  element  of  power  at  our  com 
mand — such  an  element  as  no  other  people  ever  had — might  have 
been  used,  not  only  in  breaking  up  the  blockade  by  our  own 
means,  without  looking  to  foreign  intervention,  but  in  supplying 
the  treasur}^  with  specie  to  pay  interest  on  their  bonds,  thus  giv 
ing  a  credit  that  no  government  ever  had  before.  The  public 
credit  is  as  essential  as  subsistence  in  war.  Such,  at  least,  was, 
and  is  my  opinion.  The  government,  however,  took  a  different 
view  of  the  subject.  Many  thought  it  unconstitutional.  Some 
looked  upon  it  as  a  project  to  relieve  the  planters.  Others  thought 
it  nothing  short  of  a  South  sea  speculation.  I  considered  it  then 
and  now  just  as  constitutional  as  to  give  bonds  for  gunpowder, 
or  to  buy  other  munitions  of  war.  It  was  not  with  a  view  to 
relieve  the  planters,  though  its  incidental  accommodation  to  them 
would  not  have  been  objectionable,  but  with  the  view  of  wielding 
effectually  the  element  of  the  greatest  power  we  could  command, 
that  I  wished  this  course  adopted.  This  resource  then ;  this 
element  of  power  we  still  have — though  not  to  the  same'  extent. 
There  is  enough,  however,  to  effect  wonderful  results,  if  properly 
used,  as  it  can  be.  We  may  have  lost  a  year  or  two,  but  we  are 
far  short  of  seven  years'  war  yet.  With  our  ports  open  many  of  the 
present  evils  and  hardships  of  the  war  would  be  relieved.  We 
would  no  longer  have  to  give  fifty  dollars  for  a  bushel  of  Liver 
pool  salt,  or  ten  dollars  for  the  roughest  sort  of  shoes.  With 
ports  open  and  this  in  hand,  we  should  be  much  better  able  to 


758  ADDRESS  AT   CRAWFORDVILLE. 

make  it  a  Peloponesian  struggle,  if  our  enemy  choose  so  to 
make  it.  This  view  and  one  other  idea  I  presented  to  the  people 
at  Sparta,  upon  the  subject  of  cotton,  which  I  will  repeat  here. 

Many  to  be  met  with,  suppose  that  by  abandoning  the  growth 
of  cotton  and  burning  what  we  have,  we  can  force  our  recognition 
abroad.  This,  I  told  the  people  there  and  tell  you,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  a  radical  and  fundamental  error.  England  will 
never  be  controlled  by  such  a  policy.  Our  cotton  should  be 
treasured  up,  not  sold — more  precious  is  it  than  gold — for  it  is 
more  powerful,  as  a  sinew  of  war,  than  gold  is.  Like  gold,  and 
every  thing  else  of  value,  it  should  be  destroyed,  if  need  be,  to 
prevent  its  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  but  with  no  view 
to  a  foreign  policy;  nor  should  the  production  of  cotton  be 
abandoned,  with  such  a  view.  You  could  not  please  Lord 
Palmerston  better  than  to  let  him  know  that  there  would  not 
be  grown  a  pound  of  cotton  in  the  southern  confederacy  for 
twenty  years.  The  power  of  cotton  is  well  known  to  and  felt  by 
British  statesmen.  They  know  it  is  King  in  its  proper  sphere, 
and  hence  they  want  the  sceptre  of  this  King  for  their  own  use. 

The  great  error  of  those  who  suppose  that  King  cotton  would 
compel  the  English  ministry  to  recognize  our  government  and 
raise  the  blockade,  and  who  will  look  for  the  same  result  from 
the  total  abandonment  of  its  culture,  consists  in  mistaking  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom  of  this  potentate.  His  power  is  commer 
cial  and  financial — not  political.  It  has  been  one  of  the  leading 
objects  of  Lord  Palmerston,  ever  since  he  has  been  in  office,  to 
stimulate  the  production  of  cotton  in  his  own  dominions — or 
those  of  his  sovereign — so  as  not  to  be  dependent  upon  us  for 
a  supply.  This  he  cannot  do  to  any  extent,  while  his  inexperi 
enced  producers  have  to  compete  with  us.  Cotton  can  be  raised 
in  their  East  India  possessions  and  those  on  the  western  coast 
of  Africa,  at  eighteen  or  twenty  cents  a  pound ;  but  it  cannot 
be  raised  there  profitably  to  any  extent  in  competition  with  us 
at  eight  or  ten  cents.  If  assured,  however,  of  no  competition 
from  this  quarter,  they  could,  or  it  is  believed  would,  after  a  while, 
get  to  producing  it  as  cheaply  as  we  can. 

Improvements  in  agriculture  are  slower  in  their  progress  than 
in  any  other  department  of  life.  No  one  can  safely  or  wisely  say 
how  cheaply  cotton  may  or  may  not  be  grown  in  those  countries, 
with  a  few  years,  absolute  control  of  the  market,  nor  that  the 
quality  of  the  article  may  not  be  as  good.  No  one  can  tell  what 
may  be'effected  by  improvements  in  agriculture  and  the  introduc- 
Jion  of  new  varieties  suitable  to  climate  and  soil.  More  money 
can  be  made  here  by  growing  cotton  now  at  eight  cents  a  pound, 
than  could  be  made  at  eighteen  cents  forty  years  ago.  The  quality 
is  also  greatly  superior  to  the  old  black  seed.  More  persons  can 
now  pick  three  hundred  pounds  a  day  than  could  pick  one  hundred 
when  I  can  first  recollect ;  and  one  hand  and  horse  or  mule  can 
cultivate  t»  ice  as  much  land.  It  is  a  great  mistake,  I  think,  to 


ADDRESS  AT   CBAWFORDVILLE.  759 

suppose  cotton  cannot  be  grown  as  cheaply,  and  with  as  good  a 
staple — fine  a  fibre — in  other  countries,  as  it  can  in  this — not  in 
all  places  where  it  is  now  grown,  but  in  some. 

There  is  nothing  within  the  bounds  of  human  knowledge  on 
which  reliance  can  be  placed  with  such  certainty  as  to  results,  as 
upon  the  laws  of  nature.  It  is  on  these  laws  governing  the  races 
of  men  that  our  institutions  are  based.  And  there  is  nothing- 
better  ascertained  in  the  floral  kingdom,  than  that  on  the  same 
geological  formation,  within  the  same  lines  of  temperature  and 
climatic  conditions  (either  from  altitude  or  latitude)  the  same 
species  and  varieties  of  plants  will  grow,  each  producing  its  like 
under  similar  culture  to  as  great  perfection  in  one  hemisphere  as 
the  other,  and  upon  one  continent  as  another.  We  have  one  ad 
vantage  in  the  production  of  cotton  which  they  have  not  in  the 
British  provinces.  This  has  no  reference  to  climate,  soil  or  vari 
eties.  It  is  our  system  of  labor.  On  our  advantage  in  this  par 
ticular,  and  to  this  extent  (which  is  no  inconsiderable  item)  we 
may  rely  in  looking  at  the  prospect  of  competition  in  the  future, 
with  these  countries,  should  they,  by  a  continuation  of  our  block 
ade,  or  our  necessary  abandonment  of  the  culture  for  a  time,  have 
the  market  of  the  world  to  themselves. 

We  should  not,  therefore,  think  of  abandoning  the  production 
of  cotton,  with  any  idea  of  thereby  advancing  our  interests — 
politically — abroad.  This  would  be  but  playing  into  the  hands 
of  those  powers  who  are  trying  to  break  it  down.  We  have  had 
to  curtail  it,  and  shall  have  to  curtail  it  while  the  Avar  lasts — 
especially  while  the  blockade  continues.  Duty  and  patriotism,  as 
well  as  necessity,  require  this.  The  first  great  object  of  all  now, 
should  be  to  sustain  our  cause ;  to  feed,  as  well  as  clothe  men  in 
the  field.  To  do  this  besides  raising  sufficient  provisions  for 
home  consumption,  will  necessarily  require  larger  grain  crops. 
To  have  an  abundance  for  home  consumption,  and  for  the 
army,  should  be  the  object  of  every  one.  This  is  dictated  by 
the  highest  considerations  of  home  policy,  and  not  from  any 
view  of  advancing  our  interests  abroad.  On  the  contrary, 
after  sufficient  provisions  are  made  for  home  consumption  and' 
to  supply  the  army,  the  more  cotton  that  can  be  grown  the 
better.  How  to  regulate  this  is  a  difficult  matter.  When  the 
duty  rests  upon  all  alike  to  grow  grain,  and  raise  stock  for  food, 
some  may  be  disposed  to  neglect  it.  How  to  meet  this  difficulty 
is  itself  a  difficult  question.  It  might  perhaps  be  done  by  each 
State's  passing  a  similar  law  upon  the  subject,  limiting  the  pro 
duction  of  each  hand  engaged  in  its  culture.  This  would  require 
concert  of  action.  What  the  limitation  should  be,  I  am  not  pre 
pared  to  say.  I  have  not  the  necessary  estimates  and  statistics. 

On  the  subject  of  foreign  recognition,  Mr.  Stephens  said  he  saw 
no  change  in  the  prospect.  Foreign  governments,  he  thought, 
wore  very  much  disposed  to  stand  aloof  from  this  contest.  He 
did  not  believe  they  really  sympathized  with  either  side — he 


760  ADDRESS  AT    CRAWFORD VILLE. 

meant  the  ruling  classes.  The  masses  of  the  people,  and  the 
eommereial  interests  generally,  he  thought  did  sympathize  with 
us.  Not  so  with  their  rulers.  They  care  but  little  for  the  success 
of  either  the  North  or  the  South.  Some  of  our  people  were  dis 
posed  to  think  that  their  sympathies  were  with  the  North,  while 
the  northern  papers  were  charging  them  with  sympathy  for  us. 
He  thought  they  had  no  kind  feelings  for  either,  but  rather 
rejoiced  to  see  professed  republicans  cutting  each  other's  throats. 
He  thought  the  remark  reported  to  have  lately  been  uttered  by 
Carlyle  in  his  quaint  style,  embodied  in  a  nutshell  the  diplo 
matic  feelings  of  Europe  toward  the  cause  on  both  sides.  The 
remark  was  that,  "  It  was  the  foulest'  chimney  that  had  been  on 
fire  for  a  century,  and  the  best  way  is  to  let  it  burn  itself  out." 

They  were  against  republicanism.  They  are  hostile  to  the 
principle  that  man  is  capable  of  self-government.  They  are 
doubtless  in  hope  that  this  principle  will  be  extinguished  on  both 
sides  of  the  line  before  the  contest  ends.  They  were  wise  enough 
to  see  that  the  North  (from  the  course  commenced  there)  would 
soon  run  into  anarchy  or  despotism,  and  they  are  perhaps  look 
ing  for  the  same  fate  to  befall  us.  This  has  usually  been  the  fate 
of  republics ;  and  one  of  the*  highest  duties  we  have  to  perform 
to  ourselves  and  posterity,  was  to  see  that  their  expectations 
shall  fail  so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  We  have  a  high  mission  to 
perform ;  and  Mr.  Stephens  trusted  the  people  of  the  South 
would  prove  themselves  equal  to  the  task  of  its  performance. 
We  have  our  independence  to  maintain  and  constitutional  liberty 
to  preserve.  With  us  now  rest  the  hopes  of  the  world.  The 
North  has  already  become  a  despotism.  The  people,  there,  while 
nominally  free,  are  in  no  better  condition,  practically,  than  serfs. 
The  only  plausibility  they  have  for  the  war  is  to  make  freemen  of 
slaves,  and  those  of  an  inferior  race,  while  their  efforts  in  this 
unnatural  crusade  thus  far  have  resulted  in  nothing  but  making 
slaves  of  themselves.  Presidential  proclamations  supersede  and 
set  aside  both  laws  and  constitutions.  Liberty  with  them  is  but 
a  name  and  a  mockery.  In  separating  from  them,  we  quit  the 
Union,  but  we  rescued  the  constitution.  This  was  the  Ark  of 
the  Covenant  of  our  fathers.  It  is  our  high  duty  to  keep  it,  and 
hold  it,  and  preserve  it  forever.  Independence  with  us  was,  said 
Mr.'  Stephens,  a  great  object,  but  no  greater  than  the  maintenance 
and  perpetuation  of  constitutional  liberty.  The  latter  was  even 
more  important  than  the  other.  Independence  was  resorted  to 
as  the  only* means  to  secure  and  maintain  for  ourselves  constitu 
tional  rights.  Let  both  independence  and  constitutional  liberty 
be  kept  constantly  in  view.  Away  with  the  idea  of  getting  inde 
pendence  first,  and  looking  after  liberty  afterward.  Our  liberties 
once  lost,  may  be  lost  forever. 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          761 


SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY,  DE 
LIVERED  BEFORE  THE  GEORGIA  LEGISLATURE, 
AT  MILLEDGEYILLE,  GEORGIA;  REPORTED  BY  A. 
E.  MARSHALL,  AND  REVISED  BY  HIMSELF.  ON 
WEDNESDAY  NIGHT,  MARCH  16th,  1864. 

At  the  hour  of  f  j-  o'clock,  P.  M.,  the  Hall  had  been  filled  to  its 
utmost  capacity  by  members  of  the  legislature  and  citizens  gener 
ally,  and  as  the  vast  assemblage  within  saw  the  beloved  form  of 
Georgia's  proud  and  noble  son,  every  eye  grew  bright  with  joy, 
and  a  hearty  and  unanimous  applause  bid  him  welcome. 

Mr.  STEPHENS  ascended  the  Speaker's  stand  and  spoke  as 
follows : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives : 
In  compliance  with  your  request,  or  at  least  with  that  of  a 
large  portion  of  your  respective  bodies.  I  appear  before  you  to 
night  to  speak  of  the  state  of  public  affairs.  Never,  perhaps,  be 
fore,  have  I  risen  to  address  a  public  audience  under  circum 
stances  of  so  much  responsibility,  and  never  did  I  feel  more 
deeply  impressed  with  the  weight  of  it.  Questions  of  the  most 
momentous  importance  are  pressing  upon  you  for  consideration 
and  action.  Upon  these  I  am  to  address  you.  Would  that  my 
ability,  physically,  and  in  all  other  respects,  were  commensurate 
with  the  magnitude  of  the  occasion.  We  are  in  the  midst  of 
dangers  and  perils.  Dangers  without  and  dangers  within.  Scyl- 
la  on  the  one  side  and  Charybdis  on  the  other.  War  is  being 
waged  against  us  by  a  strong,  unscrupulous  and  vindictive  foe ; 
a  war  for  our  subjugation,  degradation  and  extermination.  From 
this  quarter  threaten  the  perils  without.  Those  within  a^ise  from 
questions  of  policy  as  to  the  best  means,  the  wisest  and  safest,  to 
repel  the  enemy,  achieve  our  independence,  to  maintain  and  keep 
secure  our  rights  and  liberties.  Upon  the  decision  of  these  ques 
tions,  looking  to  the  proper  development  of  our  limited  resources, 
wisely  and  patriotically,  so  that  their  entire  efficiency  may  be  ex 
erted  in  our  deliverance,  with  at  the  same  time  a  watchful  vigi 
lance  to  the  safety  of  the  citadel  itself,  as  much  depends  as  upon 
the  skill  of  our  commanders  and  the  valor  of  our  citizen  soldiers 
in  the  field.  Every  thing  dear  to  us  as  freemen  is  at  stake.  An 
error  in  judgment,  though  springing  from  the  most  patriotic  mo 
tives,  whether  in  councils  of  war  or  councils  of  state,  may  be  fatal. 
He,  therefore,  who  rises  under  sjch  circumstances  to  offer  words 
of  advice,  not  only  assumes  a  position  of  great  responsibility,  but 
stands  on  dangerous  ground.  Impressed  profoundly  with  such 
feelings  and  convictions,  I  should  shrink  from  the  undertaking 
you  have  called  me  to,  but  for  the  strong  consciousness  that 
where  duty  leads  no  one  should  ever  fear  to  tread.  Great  as  are 
the  dangers  that  threaten  us,  perilous  as  is  our  situation — and  I 


762    SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDEKACY. 

do  not  intend  to  overstate  or  understate,  neither  to  awaken  un 
due  apprehension,  or  to  excite  hopes  and  expectations  never  to 
be  realized — perilous,  therefore,  as  our  situation  is,  it  is  far,  far 
from  being  desperate  or  hopeless,  and  I  feel  no  hesitation  in  say 
ing  to  you,  in  all  frankness  and  candor,  that  if  we  are  true  to  our 
selves,  and  true  to  our  cause,  all  may  yet  be  well. 

In  the  progress  of  the  war  thus  far,  it  is  true  there  is  much 
to  be  seen  of  suffering,  of  sacrifice  and  of  desolation ;  much  to 
sicken  the  heart  and  cause  a  blush  for  civilization  and  Chris 
tianity.  Cities  have  been  taken,  towns  have  been  sacked,  vast 
amounts  of  property  have  been  burned,  fields  have  been  laid 
waste,  records  have  been  destroyed,  churches  have  been  dese 
crated,  women  and  children  have  been  driven  from  their  homes, 
unarmed  men  have  been  put  to  death,  States  have  been  overrun 
and  whole  populations  made  to  groan  under  the  heel  of  despot 
ism  ;  all  these  things  are  seen  and  felt,  but  in  them  nothing  is  to 
be  seen  to  cause  dismay,  much  less  despair ;  these  deeds  of  ruin 
and  savage  barbarity  have  been  perpetrated  only  on  the  outer 
borders,  on  the  coast,  and  on  the  line  of  the  rivers,  where  by  the 
aid  of  their  ships  of  war  and  gunboats  the  enemy  has  had  the  ad 
vantage  ;  the  great  breadth  of  the  interior — the  heart  of  our  coun 
try — has  never  yet  been  reached  by  them ;  they  have  as  yet,  after  a 
struggle  of  nearly  three  years,  with  unlimited  means,  at  a  cost  of 
not  less  than  four  thousand  millions  of  dollars  (how  much  more 
is  unknown)  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  lives,  been  able  only 
to  break  the  outter  shell  of  the  Confederacy.  -The  only  signal  ad 
vantages  they  have  as  yet  gained  have  been  on  the  water,  or  where 
their  land  and  naval  forces  were  combined.  That  they  should 
have  gained  advantages  under  such  circumstances,  is  not  a  mat 
ter  of  in,uch  surprise.  Nations  in  war,  like  individual  men  or 
animals,  show  their  real  power  in  combat  when  they  stand  upon 
the  advantages  that  nature  has  given  them,  and  fight  on  their 
own  ground  and  in  their  own  element.  The  lion,  though  king 
of  the  forest,  cannot  contend  successfully  with  the  shark  in  the 
water.  In  no  conflict  of  arms  away  from  gunboats,  during  the 
whole  war,  since  the  first  battle  of  Manassas  to  that  of  Ocean 
Pond,  have  our  gallant  soldiers  failed  of  victory  when  the  num 
bers  on  each  side  were  at  all  equal.  The  furthest  advance  into 
the  interior  from  the  base  and  protection  of  their  gunboats, 
either  on  the  coast  or  the  rivers,  that  the  enemy  has  Ijeen  able 
to  make  for  three  j^ears  was  the  late  movement  from  Vicksburg 
to  Meridian,  and  the  speedy  turn  of  that  movement  shows  nothing 
more  clearly  than  the  difficulties  and  disadvantages  attending  ail 
such ;  these  things  should  be  noted  and  marked  in  considering 
our  present  situation  and  the  prospects  of  the  future.  In  all 
our  losses  up  to  this  time,  no  vital  blow  has  yet  been  given 
either  to  our  cause  or  our  energies.  We  still  hold  Richmond, 
after  repeated  efforts  to  take  it,  both  by  force  and  strategy.  We 
still  hold  on  the  Gulf,  Mobile,  and,  on  the  ocean  front,  Wilming- 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          763 

ton.  Savannah  and  Charleston.  These  places  have  been,  and  are  still 
held  against  the  most  formidable  naval  armament  ever  put  afloat. 
At  Charleston  the  enemy  seem  to  direct  all  their  power,  land 
and  naval,  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  in  combination — all  their 
energy,  rancor,  and  vengeance.  "Carthago  delanda  est,"  is  their 
vow  as  to  this  devoted  city.  Every  means  that  money  can  com 
mand  and  ingenuit}r  suggest,  from  the  hugest  engines  of  war 
never  before  known  to  the  fiendish  resort  of  Greek  fire,  have 
been  and  are  being  applied  for  its  destruction.  For  nearly  nine 
months  the  city,  under  the  skill  of  our  consummate  commander, 
his  subordinates,  and  the  heroic  virtues  of  our  matchless  braves 
in  the  ranks,  still  holds  out  against  all  the  disadvantages  of  a 
defence  without  suitable  naval  aid.  That  she  ma}7  continue  to 
hold  out,  and  her  soil  never  be  polluted  by  the  unhallowed  foot 
prints  of  her  vengeful  besiegers,  is,  of  course,  the  earnest  wish 
of  all.  But  even  if  so  great  a  disaster  should  happen  to  us  as 
the  loss  of  Charleston,  be  not  dismayed,  indulge  no  sentiment 
akin  to  that  of  despair — Charleston  is  not  a  vital  part.  We 
may  lose  that  place,  Savannah,  Mobile,  Wilmington,  and  even 
Richmond,  the  seat  of  government,  and  still  survive.  We  may 
lose  all  our  strong  places — the  enemy  may  traverse  our  great 
interior  as  they  have  lately  done  in  Mississippi,  and  we  may  still 
survive.  We  should,  even  under  such  calamities,  be  no  worse 
oif  than  our  ancestors  were  in  their  struggle  for  independence. 
During  the  time  that  "  tried  men's  souls"  with  them  every  city 
on  the  coast,  from  Boston  to  Savannah,  was  taken  by  the  enemy. 
Philadelphia  was  taken,  and  Congress  driven  away.  South 
Carolina,  North  Carolina,  portions  of  Georgia,  Virginia,  and 
other  States,  were  overrun  and  occupied  by  the  enemy  as  com 
pletely  as  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Louisiana  and  Tennessee  are  now. 
Take  courage  from  the  example  of  your  ancestors — disasters 
caused. with  them  nothing  like  dismay  or  despair — they  only 
aroused  a  spirit  of  renewed  energy  and  fortitude.  The  princi 
ples  they  fought  for,  suffered  and  endured  so  much  for,  are  the 
same  for  which  we  are  now  struggling — State  rights,  State 
sovereignt}7",  the  great  principle  set  forth  in  the  declaration  of 
independence — the  right  of  every  State  to  govern  itself  as  it 
pleases.  With  the  same  wisdom,  prudence,  forecast  and  pa 
triotism  ;  the  same  or  equal  statesmanship  on  the  part  of  our 
rulers  in  directing  and  wielding  our  resources,  our  material  of 
war,  that  controlled  public  affairs  at  that  time,  in  the  camp  and 
in  the  cabinet,  and  with  the  same  spirit  animating  the  breast  of 
the  people,  devotion  to  liberty  and  right,  hatred  of  tyranny  and 
oppression,  affection  for  the  cause  for  the  cause's  sake ;  with  the 
same  sentiments  and  feelings  on  the  part  of  rulers  and  people 
in  these  days  as  were  in  those,  we  might  and  may  be  overrun  as 
they  were ;  our  interior  may  be  penetrated  by  superior  hostile 
armies,  and  our  country  laid  waste  as  theirs  was,  but  we  can 
never  be  conquered,  as  they  never  could  be.  The  issues  of  war 


764:     SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDEEACY. 

depend  quite  as  much  upon  statesmanship  as  generalship ;  quite 
as  much  upon  what  is  done  at  the  council  board,  as  upon  what 
is  done  in  the  field.  Much  the  greater  part  of  all  wars,  is  busi 
ness — plain  practical  every-day-life  business ;  there  is  in  it  no 
art  or  mystery  or  special  knowledge,  except  good,  strong,  com 
mon  sense — this  relates  to  the  finances,  the  quartermaster's  and 
commissary's  departments,  the  ways  and  means  proper — in  a 
word  to  the  resources  of  a  country  and  its  capacities  for  war. 
The  number  of  men  that  can  be  spared  from  production,  without 
weakening  the  aggregate  strength — the  prospect  of  supplies, 
subsistence,  arms  and  munitions  of  all  kinds.  It  is  as  necessary 
that  men  called  out  should  be  armed,  clothed,  shod  and  fed,  as 
that  they  should  be  put  in  the  field — subsistence  is  as  essential 
as  men.  At  present  we  have  subsistence  sufficient  for  the  year, 
if  it  is  taken  care  of  and  managed  with  economy.  Upon  a  mod 
erate  estimate,  one  within  reasonable  bounds,  the  tithes  of  wheat 
and  corn  for  last  year  were  not  less,  in  the  States  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  (to  say  nothing  of  the  other  side,)  than  eighteen 
million  bushels.  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  are  not  included 
in  this  estimate.  This  would  bread  an  army  of  five  hundred 
thousand  men  and  one  hundred  thousand  horses  for  twelve 
months,  and  leave  a  considerable  margin  for  waste  or  loss. 
This  we  have  without  bivying  or  impressing  a  bushel  or  pound. 
Nor  need  a  bushel  of  it  be  lost  on  account  of  the  want  of  trans 
portation  from  points  at  a  distance  from  railroads.  At  such 
places  it  could  be  fed  to  animals,  put  into  beef  and  pork,  and 
thus  lessen  the  amount  of  these  articles  of  food  to  be  bought. 
Upon  a  like  estimate  the  tithe  of  meat  for  the  last  year,  will  supply 
the  army  for  at  least  six  months — rendering  the  purchase  of  sup 
plies  of  this  article  necessary  for  only  half  the  year — the  surplus 
in  the  country,  over  and  above  the  tithes,  is  ample  to  meet  the  defi 
ciency.  All  that  is  wanting  is  men  of  business  capacity,  honesty, 
integrity,  economy  and  industry  in  the  management  and  control 
of  that  department.  There  need  be  no  fear  of  the  want  of  sub 
sistence  this  year,  if  our  officials  do  their  duty.  But  how  it  will 
be  next  year,  if  the  policy  adopted  by  Congress,  at  its  late  ses 
sion,  is  carried  out,  no  one  can  safely  venture  to  say. 

This  brings  me  to  the  main  objects  of  this  address,  a  review 
of  those  acts  of  Congress  to  which  your  attention  has  been 
specially  called  by  the  governor,  and  on  which  your  action  is 
invoked — these  are,  the  currency,  the  military,  and  the  habeas 
corpus  suspension  acts.  It  is  the  beauty  of  our  S3^stem  of  gov 
ernment,  that  all  in  authority  are  responsible  to  the  people.  It 
is,  too,  always  more  agreeable  to  approve  than  to  disapprove 
what  our  agents  have  done.  But  in  grave  and  important  mat 
ters,  however  disagreeable  or  even  painful  it  may  be  to  express 
disapproval,  yet  sometimes  the  highest  duty  requires  it.  No 
exceptions  should  be  taken  to  this  when  it  is  done  in  a  proper 
spirit,  and  with  a  view  solely  for  the  public  welfare.  In  free 


SPEECH   ON  THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          765 

governments  men  will  differ  as  to  the  best  means  of  promoting 
the  public  good.  Honest  differences  of  opinion  should  never 
beget  ill  feelings,  or  personal  alienations.  The  expressions  of 
differences  of  opinion  do  no  harm  when  truth  alone  is  the  object 
on  both  sides.  Our  opinions  in  all  such  discussions  of  public 
affairs,  should  be  given  as  from  friends  to  friends,  as  from 
borthers  to  brothers,  in  a  common  cause.  We  are  all  launched 
upon  the  same  boat,  and  must  ride  the  storm  or  go  down  to 
gether.  Disagreements  should«never  arise,  except  from  one  cause 
— a  difference  in  judgment,  as  to  the  best  means  to  be  adopted, 
or  course  to  be  pursued,  for  the  common  safety.  This  is"  the 
spirit  by  which  I  am  actuated  in  the  comments  I  shall  make  upon 
these  acts  of  Congress. 

As  to  the  first  two  of  these  measures,  the  Tax  Act  and  Funding 
Act,  known  together  as  the  financial  and  currency  measures,  I 
simply  say,  in  my  judgment,  they  are  neither  proper,  wise  or 
just.  Whether  in  the  midst  of  conflicting  views,  in  such  diver 
sity  of  opinion  and  interests,  any  thing  better  could  not  be 
obtained,  I  know  not — perhaps  not.  With  that  view  we  may  be 
reconciled  to  what  we  do  not  approve.  It  is  useless  now  to  go 
into  discussions  of  how  better  measures  might  have  been  obtained, 
or  how  bad  ones  might  have  been  avoided — the  whole  is  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  evils  attending  first  departures  from  principle 
— the  "facilis  descensus  Averno."  Error  is  ever  the  prolific 
source  of  error.  Our  present  financial  embarrassments  had  their 
origin  in  a  blunder  at  the  beginning,  but  we  must  deal  with  the 
present,  not  the  past.  These  two  acts  make  it  necessary  for  you 
to  change  your  legislation  to  save  the  State  from  loss.  As  to  the 
course  you  should  adopt  to  do  this,  I  know  of  none  better  than 
that  recommended  by  the  governor.  His  views  and  suggestions 
on  this  point  seem  to  be  proper  and  judicious. 

The  military  act  *by  which  conscription  is  extended  so  as  to 
embrace  all  between  the  ages  of  seventeen  and  fifty,  and  by  which 
the  State  is  to  be  deprived  of  so  much  of  its  labor,  and  stripped 
of  the  most  efficient  portion  of  her  enrolled  militia,  presents  a 
much  graver  question.  This  whole  system  of  conscription  I  have 
looked  upon  from  the  beginning  as  wrong,  radically  wrong  in 
principle  and  in  policy.  Contrary  opinions,  however,  prevailed. 
But  whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  have  been  entertained 
as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  previous  conscript  acts,  it 
seems  clear  to  my  mind  that  but  little  difference  can  exist  as  to 
the  unconstitutionality  of  this  late  act.  The  act  provides  for  the 
organizing  of  troops  of  an  anomalous  character — partly  as  militia 
and  partly  as  a  portion  of  the  regular  armies.  But,  in  fact,  they 
are  to  be  organized  neither  as  militia  or  part  of  the  regular  army. 
We  have  but  two  kinds  of  forces,  the  regular  army  and  the  militia 
— this  is  neither.  The  men  are  to  be  raised  as  conscripts  for  the 
regular  forces,  while  their  officers  are  to  be  appointed  as  if  they 
were  militia.  If  they  were  intended  as  militia,  they  should  have 


766          SPEECH   ON   THE    STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDERACY. 

been  called  out,  through  the  governor,  in  their  present  organiza 
tions — if  as  regular  forces,  they  cannot  be  officered  as  the  act 
provides.  It  is  most  clearly  unconstitutional.  Who  is  to  com 
mission  these  officers  ?  The  governor  cannot,  for  they  are 
taken  from  under  his  control ;  the  President  cannot  constitution 
ally  do  it,  for  he  can  commission  none  except  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  It  is  for  3rou  to  say  whether 
you  will  turn  over  these  forces,  and  allow  them  to  be  conscripted, 
as  is  provided,  leaving  the  question  of  constitutionality  for  the 
courts,  or  whether  you  will  hold  them  in  view  of  agricultural  and 
othe*r  interest,  or  for  the  execution  of  your  laws,  and  to  be  called 
out  for  the  public  defence  in  case  of  emergency  by  the  governor 
when  he  sees  the  necessity,  or  when  they  are  called  for  as  militia 
by  the  President.  The  act  upon  its  face,  in  its  provisions  for 
details,  seems  to  indicate  that  its  object  is  not  to  put  the  whole 
of  them  in  the  field.  Nothing  could  be  more  ruinous  to  our  cause 
if  such  were  the  object  and  intention,  and  should  it  ever  be  carried 
into  effect.  For  if  all  the  white  labor  of  the  country,  from  seven 
teen  to  fifty — except  the  few  exemptions  stated — be  called  out 
and  kept  constantly  in  the  field,  we  must  fail,  sooner  or  later,  for 
want  of  subsistence  and  other  essential  supplies.  To  wage  war 
successfully,  men  at  home  are  as  necessary  as  men  in  the  field. 
Those  in  the  field  must  be  provided  for,  and  their  families  at 
home  must  be  provided  for.  In  my  judgment,  no  people  can 
successfully  carry  on  a  long  war,  with  more  than  a  third  of  its 
arms-bearing  population  kept  constantly  in  the  field,  especially  if, 
cut  off  by  blockade,  they  are  thrown  upon  their  own  internal 
resources  for  all  necessary  supplies,  subsistence  and  munitions 
of  war.  This  is  a  question  of  arithmetic  on  well,  settled  problems 
of  political  economy.  But  can  we  succeed  against  the  hosts  of 
the  enemy  unless  all  able  to  bear  arms  up  to  fifty  years  of  age 
are  called  to  and  kept  in  the  field  ?  Yes,  a  thousand  times  yes,  I 
answer,  with  proper  and  skilful  management.  If  we  cannot 
without  such  a  call,  we  cannot  with  it,  if  the  war  last  long.  The 
success  of  Greece  against  the  invasion  by  Persia — the  success  of 
the  Netherlands  against  Philip — the  success  of  Frederick  against 
the  allied  powers  of  Europe — the  success  of  the  colonies  against 
Great  Britain,  all  show  that  it  can  be  done.  If  our  only  hope  was 
in  matching  the  enemy  with  equal  numbers,  then  our  cause  would 
be  desperate  indeed.  Superior  numbers  is  one  of  the  chief  advan 
tages  of  the  enemy.  We  must  avail  ourselves  of  our  advantages. 
W^e  should  not  rely  for  success  by  playing  into  his  hand.  An 
invaded  people  have  many  advantages  that  may  be  resorted  to,  to 
counterbalance  superiority  of  numbers.  These  should  be  studied, 
sought,  and  brought  into  active  co-operation.  To  secure  success, 
brains  must  do  something  as  well  as  muskets. 

Of  all  the  dangers  that  threaten  our  ultimate  success,  I  con 
sider  none  more  imminent  than  the  policy  embodied  in  this  act, 
if  the  object  really  be,  as  its  broad  terms  declare,  to  put  and  keep 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDEKACY  767 

in  active  service  all  between  the  ages  of  seventeen  and  fifty, 
except  the  exempts  named.  On  that  line  we  will  most  assuredly, 
sooner  or  later,  do  what  the  enemy  never  could  do,  conquer  our 
selves.  And  if  such  be  not  the  object  of  the  act — if  it  is  only 
intended  to  conscript  men  not  intended  for  service,  not  with  a 
view  to  fill  the  army,  but  for  the  officials,  to  take  charge  of  the 
general  labor  of  the  country  and  the  various  necessary  vocations 
and  pursuits  of  life,  then  the  act  is  not  only  wrong  in  principle 
but  exceedingly  dangerous  in  its  tendency. 

I  come,  now,  to  the  last  of  these  acts  of  Congress.  The  sus 
pension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  certain  cases.  This  is 
the  most  exciting  as  it  is  by  far  the  most  important  question 
before  you.  Upon  this  depends  the  question,  whether  the  courts 
shall  be  permitted  to  decide  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the 
late  conscript  act,  should  you  submit  that  question  to  their  de 
cision,  and  upon  it  also  depend  other  great  essential  rights 
enjoyed  by  us  as  freemen.  This  act  upon  its  face,  confers  upon 
the  President,  secretary  of  war,  and  the  general  commanding  in 
the  trans-Mississippi-  department,  (the  two  latter  acting  under 
the  control  and  authority  of  the  President,)  the  power  to  arrest 
and  imprison  any  person  who  may  be  simply  charged  with  certain 
acts,  not  all  of  them  even  crimes  under  any  law ;  and  this  is  to 
be  done  without  any  oath  or  affirmation  alledging  probable  cause 
as  to  the  guilt  of  the  party.  This  is  attempted  to  be  done  under 
that  clause  of  the  constitution,  which  authorizes  Congress  to  sus 
pend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  in  certain  cases. 

In  my  judgment  this  act  is  not  only  unwise,  impolitic  and 
unconstitutional,  but  exceedingly  dangerous  to  public  liberty. 
Its  unconstitutionality  does  not  rest  upon  the  idea  that  Congress 
has  not  got  the  power  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  this  writ,  nor 
upon  the  idea  that  the  power  to  suspend  it  is  an  implied  one,  or 
that  clearly  implied  powers  are  weaker  as  a  class  and  subordinate 
to  others,  positively  and  directly  delegated. 

I  do  not  understand  the  executive  of  this  State  to  put  his 
argument  against  this  act  upon  an}'  such  grounds.  He  simply 
states  a  fact,  ^  it  most  clearly  is,  that  the  power  to  suspend  at 
all  is  an  implied  power.  There  is  no  positive,  direct  power  dele 
gated  to  do  it.  The  power,  however,  is  clear,  and  clear  only 
by  implication.  Tine  language  of  the  constitution,  that  "the 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended 
unless,  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety 
may  require  it,"  clearly  expresses  the  intention  that  the  power 
may  be  exercised  in  the  cases  stated ;  but  it  does  so  by  impli 
cation  only,  just  as  if  a  mother  should  say  to  her  daughter,  you 
shall  not  go  unless  you  ride.  Here  the  permission  and  authority 
to  go  is  clearly  given,  though  by  inference  and  implication  only. 
It  is  not  positively  and  directly  given.  This,  and  this  only,  I 
understand  the  governor  to  mean  when  he  speaks  of  the  power 
being  an  implied  one.  He  raises  no  question  as  to  the  existence 


768    SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY. 

of  the  power,  or  its  validity  when  rightfully  exercised,  but  he 
maintains,  as  I  do,  that  its  exercise  must  be  controlled  by  all 
other  restrictions  in  the  constitution  bearing  upon  its  exercise. 
Two  of  these  are  to  be  found  in  the  words  accompanying  the  dele 
gation.  It  can  never  be  exercised  except  in  rebellion  or  invasion. 
Other  restrictions  are  to  be  found  in  other  parts  of  the  constitu 
tion — in  the  amendments  to  the  constitution  adopted  after  the  rati 
fication  of  the  words  as  above  quoted.  These  amendments  were 
made,  as  is  expressly  declared  in  the  preamble  to  them,  to  add 
"  further  declaratory  and  restrictive  clauses,"  to  prevent  "  miscon 
struction  or  abuse  of  the  powers"  previously  delegated.  To 
understand  all  the  restrictions,  therefore,  thrown  around  the 
exercise  of  this  power  in  the  constitution,  these  additional  "  re 
strictive  clauses"  must  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  original 
grant,  whether  that  was  made  positively  and  directly,  or  by 
implication  only.  These  restrictions,  among  other  things,  declare, 
that  "  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law,"  and  that  the  right  of  the  people  to 
be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers  and  effects,  against 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated,  and  no 
warrants  shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath 
or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched, 
and  the  person  or  thing  to  be  seized. 

All  admit  that  under  the  clause  as  it  stands  in  the  original 
grant,  with  the  restrictions  there  set  forth,  the  power  can  be 
rightfully  exercised  only  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion.  With 
these  additional  clauses,  put  in  as  further  restrictions  to  prevent 
the  abuse  of  powers  previously  delegated,  how  is  this  clause  con 
ferring  the  power  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  now  to  be  read  ?  In  this  way,  and  ii>  this  way  only : 
"  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  sus 
pended,  unless  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  public 
safety  may  require  it."  And  no  person  "shall  be  deprived  of 
life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law."  And  fur 
ther.  "The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in. 'Uieir  persons, 
houses,  papers  and  effects  against  unreasonably  searches  and 
seizures,  shall  not  be  violated,  and  no  warrants  shall  issue  but 
upon  probable  cause,  supported  "by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  par 
ticularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or 
things  to  be  seized." 

The  attempted  exercise  of  the  power  to  suspend  the  privilege 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  this  act,  is  in  utter  disregard  in 
the  very  face  and  teeth  of  these  restrictions,  as  much  so,  as  a  like 
attempt  in  time  of  profound  peace  would  be  in  disregard  of  the 
restrictions  to  cases  of  rebellion  and  invasion,  as  the  constitution 
was  originally  adopted.  It  attempts  to  provide  for  depriving 
persons  "of  liberty,  without  due  process  of  law."  It  attempts 
to  annul  and  set  at  naught  the  great  constitutional  "  right"  of 
the  people,  to  be  secure  in  their  persons  against  "  unreasonable 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDERACY.          769 

seizures."  It  attempts  to  destroy  and  annihilate  the  bulwark  of 
personal  liberty,  secured  in  our  great  chart  to  the  humblest  as 
well  as  the  highest,  that  "  no  warrants  shall  issue  but  upon 
probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,"  and  "  particu 
larly  describing  the  person  to  be  seized."  Nay,  more,  it  attempts 
to  change  and  transform  the  distribution  of  powers  in  our  system 
of  government.  It  attempts  to  deprive  the  judiciary  department 
of  its  appropriate  and  legitimate  functions,  and  to  confer  them 
upon  the  President,  the  secretary  of  war,  and  the  general  officer 
commanding  the  trans-Mississippi  department,  or  rather  to  confer 
them  entirely  upon  the  President,  for  those  subordinates  named 
in  the  act  hold  their  places  at  his  will,  and  in  arrests  under  this 
act  are  to  be  governed  by  his  orders.  This,  by  the  constitution, 
never  can  be  done.  Ours  is  not  only  a  government  of  limited 
powers,  but  each  department,  the  legislative,  executive  and 
judicial,  are  separate  and  distinct.  The  issuing  of  warrants, 
which  are  nothing  but  orders  for  arrests,  against  civilians  or 
persons  in  civil  life,  is  a  judicial  function.  The  President,  under 
the  constitution,  has  not  the  power  to  issue  any  such.  As  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the  land  and  naval  forces,  and  the  militia  when 
in  actual  service,  he  may  order  arrests  for  trials  before  courts- 
martial,  according  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  But  he  is 
clothed  with  no  such  power  over  those  not  in  the  military  service 
and  not  subject  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  This  act 
attempts  to  clothe  him  with  judicial  functions,  and  in  a  judicial 
character  to  do  what  no  judge,  under  the  constitution,  can  do : 
issue  orders  or  warrants  for  arrest,  by  which  persons  are  to  be 
deprived  of  their  liberty,  imprisoned,  immured  in  dungeons,  it 
may  be  without  any  oath  or  affirmation,  even  as  to  the  probable 
guilt  of  the  party  accused  or  charged  with  any  of  the  offences  or 
acts  stated.  This,  under  the  constitution,  in  nry  judgment, 
cannot  be  done.  Congress  can  confer  no  such  power  upon  our 
chief  magistrate.  There  is  no  such  thing  known  in  this  country 
as  political  warrants,  or  "  lettres  de  cachet."  This  act  attempts 
to  institute  this  new  order  of  things  so  odious  to  our  ancestors, 
and  so  inconsistent  with  constitutional  liberty. 

This  act,  therefore,  is  unconstitutional,  not  because  Congress 
has  not  power  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  but  because  they  have  no  power  to  do  the  thing  aimed  at 
in  this  attempted  exercise  of  it.  Congress  can  suspend  the 
privilege  of  the  writ — the  power  is  clear  and  unquestioned — • 
neither  is  the  power,  as  it  stands,  objectionable.  Georgia,  in  the 
convention,  voted  against  the  clause  conferring  it  in  the  consti 
tution  as  originally  adopted — that,  perhaps,  was  a  wise  and 
prudent  vote.  But,  with  the  restrictions  subsequently  adopted 
there  can  be  no  well  grounded  objection  to  it.  It  is,  under 
existing  restrictions,  a  wise  pawer.  In  time  of  war,  in  cases  of 
rebellion  or  invasion,  it  may  often  be  necessary  to  exercise  it — 
the  public  safety  may  require  't  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that 
41) 


770  SPEECH    ON   THE   STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDERACY. 

the  public  safety  may  not  require  it  now.  I  am  not  informed  of 
the  reasons  which  induced  the  President  to  ask  the  suspension 
of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  at  this  time,  or  Congress  to  undertake 
its  suspension  as  provided  in  this  act.  I,  however,  know  of  no 
reasons  that  require  it  and  have  heard  of  none.  But  in  the  exer 
cise  of  an  undisputed  power,  they  have  attempted  to  do  just 
what  cannot  be  done — to  authorize  illegal  and  unconstitutional 
arrests.  There  can  be  no  suspension  of  the  writ,  under  our  s}'stem 
of  government,  against  unconstitutional  arrests — there  can  be  no 
suspension  allowing,  or  with  a  view  to  permit  and  authorize,  the 
seizure  of  persons  without  warrant  issued  by  a  judicial  officer 
upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation — the 
whole  constitution  must  be  read  together,  and  so  read  and  con 
strued  as  that  every  part  and  clause  shall  stand  and  have  its 
proper  effect  under  the  restrictions  of  other  clauses. 

If  any  conflict  arises  between  clauses  in  the  original  and  the 
amendments  subsequently  made,  the  original  must  yield  to  the 
amendments — as  a  will  previously  made  always  yields  to  the 
modifications  of  a  codicil.  Such,  of  course,  was  the  condition 
of  the  old  constitution  with  its  amendments,  when  the  States  of 
this  confederacy  adopted  it — and  it  was  adopted  by  these  States 
with  the  meaning,  force  and  effect  it  then  had.  In  construing, 
therefore,  those  parts  of  the  old  constitution  which  we  adopted, 
we  stand  just  where  we  should  have  stood,  under  like  circum 
stances,  under  it.  With  these  views  it  will  clearly  appear  that,  under 
our  constitution,  courts  cannot  be  deprived  of  their  right  or  be 
relieved  of  their  duty  to  inquire  into  the  legality  of  all  arrests 
except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  and  naval  forces  or  in  the 
militia,  when  in  actual  service — for  the  government  of  which  a 
different  provision  is  made  in  the  constitution.  Under  a  con 
stitutional  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ,  all  the  courts 
could  do,  would  be  to  see  that  the  party  was  legally  arrested  and 
held — upon  proper  warrant — upon  probable*  cause,  supported  by 
oath  or  affirmation  setting  forth  a  crime  or  some  violation  of 
law.  Literally  and  truly,  then,  the  only  effect  of  a  constitutional 
exercise  of  this  power  over  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  by  Congress 
is  to  deprive  a  person,  after  being  legally  confined,  of  the  privi 
lege  of  a  discharge  before  trial,  by  giving  bail,  or  on  account  of 
insufficiency  of  proof  as  to  probable  cause  or  other  like  grounds. 
This  privilege  only  can  be  suspended,  and  not  the  writ  itself. 
The  words  of  the  constitution  are  aptly  chosen  to  express  the 
purpose  and  extent  to  which  a  suspension  can  go  in  this 
country.  With  this  view  the  power  is  a  wise  one.  It  can  work 
no  serious  injury  to  the  citizen  and  it  sufficiently  guards  the 
public  safety.  The  party  against  whom  a  grave  accusation  is 
brought,  supported  by  oath,  or  affirmation,  founded  upon  proba 
ble  cause,  must  be  held  for  trial,  and  if  found  to  be  guilty  is  to 
be  punished  according  to  the  nature  of  his  offence.  The  mon 
strous  consequences  of  any  other  view  of  the  subject  are  appar- 


SPEECH    OX    THE    STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDERACY.          771 

ent.  The  exercise  of  the  power  by  Congress  may  be  either 
general  or  limited  to  special  cases,  as  in  this  instance.  If  it  had 
been  general,  under  any  other  view,  what  would  have  been  the 
condition  of  every  citizen  in  the  land  ?  The  weaker  would  have 
been  completely  in  the  power  of  the  stronger,  without  remedy  or 
redress.  Any  one  in  the  community  might  seize,  for  any  motive 
or  for  any  purpose,  any  other,  and  confine  him  most  wrongfully 
and  shamefully.  Combinations  of  several  against  a  few  might 
be  formed  for  a  like  purpose,  and  there  would  be  no  remedy  or 
redress  against  this  species  of  licensed  lawlessness.  The  courts 
would  be  closed — all  personal  security  and  personal  safety  would 
be  swept  away.  Instead  of  a  land  of  laws,  the  whole  country 
would  be  no  better  than  a  Whitefriars  domain — a  perfect  Alsatia. 
This  would  be  the  inevitable  effect  of  the  exercise  of  the  power, 
by  a  general  suspension,  with  any  other  view  of  the  subject,  than 
this  presented.  The  same  effects  as  to  outrages  upon  personal 
rights  must  issue  under  a  limited  suspension  confined  to  any 
specified  cases  under  any  other  view.  No  such  huge  and  enor 
mous  wrongs  can  ever  spring  from  our  constitution  if  it  be  rightly 
administered.  So  that  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is 
well  stated  by  the  governor  in  his  late  message,  in  the  brief, 
comprehensive,  but  exact  terms :  ."  The  only  suspension  of  the 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  known  to  our  constitution 
and  compatible  with  the  provisions  already  quoted,  goes  to  the 
simple  extent  of  preventing  the  release,  under  it,  of  persons 
whose  arrests  have  been  ordered,  under  constitutional  warrants 
from  judicial  authority." 

On  this  subject  much  light  is  to  be  derived  from  English  his 
tory.  Our  whole  system  of  constitutional  liberty  rests  upon 
principles  established  by  our  Anglo-Saxon  ancestors.  But  be 
tween  their  system  and  ours,  there  are  several  differences  that 
should  be  noted  and  marked — and  none  more  striking  and  funda 
mental  than  the  difference  between  the  two  upon  this  subject. 
With  them  the  right  of  personal  security  against  illegal  arrests, 
was  wrested  from  the  crown  by  the  parliament,  and  established 
by  magna  charta,  the  bill  of  rights,  the  abolition  of  star  chamber, 
and  the  grant  of  the  great  right  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
which  is  the  means  of  redress  against  violations  of  law,  and  other 
wrongs  against  rights  secured  and  acknowledged.  In  the  aboli 
tion  of  the  court  of  star  chamber,  the  power  was  taken  from  the 
king,  his  heirs  and  successors  forever,  and  every  member  of  his 
privy  council,  to  make  any  arrest  of  any  person  for  any  offence 
or  alleged  crime,  except  by  due  process  of  law.  By  this  act,  the 
power  of  the  king  to  issue  warrants  or  orders  of  arrest,  unsup 
ported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  setting  forth  probable  cause,  which 
before  had  been  claimed  as  a  royal  prerogative,  was  taken  away 
from  him  and  his  successors  forever.  The  ruling  monarch, 
Charles  I.,  gave  his  consent  to  the  act,  and  yielded  the  power. 
He  afterward  broke  his  pledge.  Civil  commotions  ensued  from 


772  SPEECH    ON   THE   STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDEKACY. 

this  and  other  causes.  He  lost  his  head  upon  the  block.  The 
subsequent  history  of  that  strife  between  the  people  and  the  crown 
of  England,  on  this  and  other  matters,  is  not  now  pertinent  to 
the  object  before  us.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it  ended  in  the  settle 
ment,  as  it  is  termed,  between  the  parliament  and  their  new  sove 
reigns,  William  and  Mary — in  1688,  '89.  In  this  settlement,  all 
the  ancient  rights  and  liberties  of  the  English  people,  including 
the  right  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.,  were  reaffirmed  and  secured. 
Such  were  the  liberties,  inherited  as  a  birthright,  that  our  British 
$icestors  brought  with  them  to  this  continent.  The  principles 
established  in  England,  after  centuries  of  struggle  and  blood, 
formed  the  basis  upon  which  the  great  structure  of  American  con 
stitutional  liberty  was  erected.  But  the  striking  difference  be 
tween  their  system  and  ours,  to  which  I  have  alluded,  and  which 
should  never  be  lost  sight  of,  is  that,  with  them,  all  power  origin 
ally  belonged  to  the  crown.  All  rights  and  liberties  were  grants 
from  the  crown  to  the  parliament,  and  through  them  to  the  peo 
ple,  while  with  us  all  power  originally  belonged  to  the  people — 
and,  essentially,  still  resides  with  them.  They  have  appointed 
agents  to  perform  the  functions  of  government  in  the  different 
departments,  executive,  judicial,  and  legislative,  under  the  form 
of  government  set  forth  in  the  constitution,  clothed  with  the  ex 
ercise  of  certain  delegated,  specific  and  limited  powers.  In  Eng 
land  it  is  competent  for  the  parliament  at  any  time  to  return  to 
the  crown  all  the  powers  heretofore  extorted  from  their  kings. 
They  are  not  restrained,  as  our  Congress  is,  by  a  want  of  power 
to  do  so  on  their  part.  They  can  repeal,  any  day,  magna  charta, 
the  habeas  corpus  act,  and  the  whole  bill  of  rights,  and  render 
their  ruling  monarch  as  absolute  as  either  of  the  Tudors  or  Stuarts 
ever  claimed  or  wished  to  be.  The  principles  of  magna  charta  as 
to  personal  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to 
secure  those  rights,  are  put  in  our  fundamental  law,  and  cannot 
be  violated  by  Congress,  for  their  powers  are  limited,  and  they 
are  themselves  bound  by  the  constitution.  That  the  British  peo 
ple  would  ever  submit  to  a  surrender  of  their  rights  by  parlia 
ment,  no  one  can  for  a  moment  believe.  But  parliament  claims 
to  be  omnipotent,  and  could  make  the  surrender,  if  they  chose  to 
run  the  risk.  Hence  analogies  between  this  country  and  that  on 
the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the  effect  of  such 
suspension,  either  generally  or  specially,  should  be  closely  scanned. 
Even  in  England,  so  great  is  the  regard  for  liberty,  suspensions 
have  been  rare  since  the  settlement  of  1G88-89.  The  writ  was 
suspended  there  in  1715  and  in  1745 — and  in  1788  it  was  sus 
pended  in  Ireland,  with  the  power  conferred  on  the  lord-lieutenant 
to  make  arrest.  Under  the  system  of  government  in  England, 
the  parliament  could  confer  this  power  upon  the  crown,  or  the 
lord-lieutenant,  or  upon  any  other  person  they  saw  fit.  Not  so 
with  our  Congress,  under  our  constitution.  In  criticisms  upon 
the  governor's  message,  these  suspensions  have  been  alluded 


SPEECH    ON   THE   STATE    OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          773 

to  against  the  positions  of  the  message.  They  are  not  in 
conflict  at  all.  What  the  governor  states  is  that  he  is  not 
aware  of  any  "  instance  in  which  the  British  king  has  ordered 
the  arrest  of  any  person  in  civil  life  in  any  other  manner 
than  by  judicial  warrant  issued  by  the  established  courts  of  the 
nation,  or  in  which  he  has  suspended,  or  attempted  to  suspend, 
the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  since  the  bill  of  rights 
and  the  act  of  settlement  passed  in  1689."  He  did  not  say  that 
parliament  had  not  suspended  it,  or  that  our  Congress  could  not 
suspend  it,  in  a  proper  way,  but  that  even  in  England,  where  par 
liament  was  unrestrained,  they  had  not,  since  the  settlement,  con 
ferred  upon  the  crown  the  power  to  make  arrests,  so  far  as  he 
was  aware. 

At  this  point  I  will  briefly  refer  to  the  suspension  by  our  Con 
gress,  alluded  to  the  other  night  by  the  distinguished  gentleman 
(Hon.  A.  H.  Kenan),  who  lately  represented  this  district ;  a  gen 
tleman  whose  remarks  I  listened  to  with  a  great  deal  of  interest, 
arid  whose  personal  friendship  I  esteem  so  highly.  He  referred 
to  the  act  of  the  confederate  Congress,  passed  October  13,  1862, 
and  asked — Why  were  there  no  objections  made  to  that  ?  This 
act  he  read.  I  have  it  before  me.  It  provides  that  the  "  Presi 
dent,  during  the  present  invasion,  shall  have  the  power  to  sus 
pend  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  any  city,  town, 
or  military  district,  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  the  public  safety 
may  require  it ;  but  such  suspension  shall  apply  only  to  arrests 
made  by  the  authorities  of  the  confederate  government,  or  for 
offences  against  the  same,"  and  in  section  2d,  that  "  the  President 
shall  cause  proper  officers  to  investigate  the  cases  of  all  persons 
so  arrested,  in  order  that  they  may  be  discharged  if  improperly 
detained,  unless  they  can  be  speedily  tried  in  due  course  of  law." 
The  3d  section  limits  the  act  to  thirty  days  after  the  meeting  of 
the  next  Congress. 

The  answer  to  the  inquiry,  why  there  was  no  noise  made  about 
this  act,  while  there  is  so  much  made  about  the  one  lately  passed, 
is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  this  act  applied  "  only  to  arrests 
made  by  the  authorities  of  the  confederate  government" — "for 
offences  against  the  same."  The  proper  authorities  for  issuing 
warrants  to  arrest,  are  the  courts,  whose  duty  it  is  to  issue  war 
rants  for  arrests  whenever  offences  or  crimes  are  charged  upon 
oath  or  affirmation,  stating  probable  cause.  The  section  directing 
the  President  to  cause  "  proper  officers  to  investigate  the  cases, 
etc.,"  in  its  immediate  connection  with  the  proceeding,  had  noth 
ing  in  it  calculated  to  awaken,  alarm,  or  excite  objection,  for  by 
"  proper  officers"  all  naturally  supposed  judicial  officers  only 
could  be  meant— judges  who  would  or  might  act  in  discharging 
under  writs  of  habeas  corpus,  if  that  privilege  had  not  been  sus 
pended.  In  this  connection,  these  words  seemed  naturally  enough 
to  have  a  meaning  far  different  from  what  they  have  when  taken 
from  their  contest  and  put  into  this  late  act,  in  which  it  is  clear 


774    SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY. 

enough  they  are  there  intended  to  apply  to  other  than  judicial  offi 
cers.  There  was  not  then,  nor  now,  any  objection,  as  far  as  I  am 
aware  of,  to  the  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  in  any  city,  town,  or  district,  or  generally  throughout  the 
country,  if  Congress  really  has  good  reasons  to  believe  the  pub 
lic  safety  requires  it,  and  if  the  power  to  suspend  be  constitution 
ally  exercised.  The  objection  to  the  late  act  is  that  it  attempts 
to  do  what  cannot  constitutionally  be  done. 

But  in  the  second  place,  in  answer  to  the  inquiry,  why  no  noise 
was  made  about  the  act  of  October,  1862,  I  need  only  say,  that 
upon  the  bare  statement  of  the  real  and  substantial  objections 
to  that  act,  it  was  admitted  to  be  unconstitutional  and  void, 
because  it  attempted  to  confer  the  power  to  suspend  the  writ 
upon  the  President,  when,  in  his  judgment,  the  public  safety  re 
quired  it  in  the  localities  embraced  in  its  terms.  Congress  alone, 
under  the  constitution,  has  the  power  to  suspend  the  privileges 
of  the  writ.  They  cannot  confer  this  power  upon  the  President 
or  anybody  else.  This  is  now  conclusively  admitted  both  by 
Congress  and  the  President  in  the  late  act,  for  it  is  set  forth  in 
the  preamble,  "  whereas,  the  power  of  suspending  the  privilege  of 
said  writ  is  vested  solely  in  the  Congress,  etc.  This  is  an  admis 
sion  on  the  record  that  the  other  act  was  unconstitutional  and 
void.  But,  to  my  mind,  it  is  just  as  clear  that  Congress  cannot 
confer  upon  the  President,  or  any  other  officer  but  a  judicial  one, 
the  power  to  issue  orders  or  warrants  for  the  arrest  of  persons 
in  civil  life  as  it  was  then,  and  on  the  passage  of  a  similar  act 
previously  that  they  could  not  confer  the  power  upon  the  Presi 
dent  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The 
late  act  is  just  as  void  as  the  previous  ones,  and  for  a  like  reason. 
In  it  Congress  has  attempted  to  do  what  they  had  not  power  to 
do.  The  first  act  on  the  subject  was  assented  to  on  the  27th 
February,  1862.  That  attempted  to  confer  on  the  President  the 
power  not  only  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  in  certain  cities,  towns,  military  districts,  etc.,  but  to  de 
clare  martial  law,  etc.  This  soon  after  was  amended.  But  no 
one  can  say  that  during  the  progress  of  these  events  I  was 
silent.  My  sentiments  upon  the  subject  of  martial  law,  against 
the  unconstitutional  usurpations  of  power,  were  proclaimed 
throughout  the  confederacy,  as  they  are  now,  and  will  be  pro 
claimed  against  the  dangerous  departures  from  principle  in  this 
act.  Martial  law  has  been  abandoned,  and  I  trust  the  departures 
from  principle  in  this  act  will  be,  too.  I  speak  upon  these  as  I 
wrote  upon  those.  I  have  no  inclination  to  arraign  the  motives 
of  those  who  disagree  with  me.  Great  principles  are  at  stake, 
and  I  feel  impelled  by  a  high  sense  of  duty,  when  my  opinions 
are  sought,  to  give  them  fully,  clearly  ind  earnestly. 

A  few  thoughts  more  upon  the  subject  in  another  view.  These 
relate  to  the  objects  and  workings  of  the  act,  if  it  be  sustained 
and  car  ied  out.  You  have  been  told  that  it  affects  none  but  the 


SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY.    775 

disloyal,  none  but  traitors,  or  those  who  are  no  better 'than  trai 
tors,  spies,  bridge-burners,  and  the  like,  and  you  have  been  ap 
pealed  to  and  asked,  if  any  such  are  entitled  to  your  sympathies? 
I  affirm,  and  shall  maintain  before  the  world  that  this  act  affects 
and  may  wrongfully  oppress  as  loyal  and  as  good  citizens  and  as 
true  to  our  cause  as  ever  trod  the  .soil  or  breathed  the  air  of  the 
South.  This  I  shall  make  so  plain  to  you  that  no  man  will  ever 
venture  to  gainsay  or  deny  it.  This  long  list  of  offences,  set 
forth  in  such  array,  in  the  thirteen  specifications,  are,  as  I  view 
them,  but  rubbish  and  verbiage,  which  tend  to  cover  and  hide 
what  in  its  workings  will  be  found  to  be  the  whole  gist  of  the 
act.  Whether  such  was  the  real  object  and  intention  of  its 
framers  and  advocates,  I  know  not.  Against  their  motives  or 
patriotism  I  have  nothing  to  say.  I  take  the  act  as  I  find  it. 
The  real  gist  of  the  whole  of  it  lies,  so  far  as  appears  upon  its 
face,  covered  up  in  the  fifth  specification  near  the  middle  of  the 
act.  It  is  embraced  in  these  words — "  and  attempts  to  avoid 
military  service I" 

Here  is  a  plain  indisputable  attempt  to  deny  every  citizen  in 
this  broad  land  the  right,  if  ordered  into  service,  to  have  the 
question  whether  he  is  liable  to  military  duty  under  the  laws 
tried  and  adjudicated  by  the  courts  ?  Whether  such  was  the  real 
object  and  intention  of  those  who  voted  for  the  bill,  I  know  not, 
but  such  would  be  its  undeniable  effect  if  sustained  and  enforced. 
A  man  over  fifty  years  of  age,  with  half  a  dozen  sons  in  the  field, 
who  has  done  every  thing  in  his  power  for  the  cause  from  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  may,  under  instructions  from  the  secre 
tary  of  war,  be  arrested  by  the  sub-enrolling  officer  and  ordered 
to  camp,  upon  the  assumed  ground  that,  in  point  of  fact,  he  is 
under  fifty.  Under  this  law,  if  it  be  law,  he  would  be  without 
remedy  or  redress.  A  case  to  illustrate  b}^  occurred  within  my 
own  knowledge  last  fall.  Orders  were  issued  to  examine  the 
census  returns  of  1860,  as  to  the  ages  of  persons,  and  instruc 
tions  given  to  sub-enrolling  officers  to  be  governed  as  to  the  age 
of  parties  by  those  returns.  In  the  case  alluded  to  by  the  census 
returns,  the  party  was  not  forty-five  at  the  time  of  arrest.  He 
protested  that  he  had  not  made  the  census  returns  himself — that 
the  return  was  erroneous,  it  was  not  given  in  under  oath — that 
he  was  able  to  prove  by  evidence  entirely  satisfactory,  that  he 
was  over  forty-five  and  not  liable  under  the  law  as  it  then  stood 
to  military  service.  His  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus — 
his  right  to  have  this  question  of  fact  and  law  settled  by  the 
courts — was  not  then  suspended,  and  he  was  discharged.  But 
what  would  be  his  situation,  and  that  of  all  others  in  like  circum 
stances,  if  this  act  be  held  to  be  law?  It  is  said  that  the  act 
affects  none  but  the  disloyal,  and  that  no  good  law-abiding  man 
can  justly  complain  of  it !  As  I  view  it,  its  main  effect  is  to  close 
the  loors  of  justice  against  thousands  of  citizens,  good  and  true, 
who  may  appeal  to  the  courts  for  their  legal  rights.  Take  the 


776  SPEECH    ON   THE    STATE    OF    THE   CONFEDERACY. 

case  of  those  who  availed  themselves  of  the  law  to  put  in  substi 
tutes — some  for  one  motive,  and  some  for  another — some,  doubt 
less,  for  not  only  good  but  patriotic  motives,  believing  that  they 
could  render  the  country  more  service  at  home  than  in  the  field. 
I  know  one  who  has  put  in  two,  one  when  the  call  was  for  those 
up  to  thirty-five  years  of  age,  the  other  when  the  call  was  to 
forty-five.  One  of  these  substitutes  was  an  alien,  whose  services 
could  not  have  been  commanded  by  the  government,  and  who  is 
now  at  Charleston,  and  has  been  during  the  whole  siege  of  that 
place.  This  man,  who  put  in  these  two  substitutes,  remained  at 
home  most  usefully  employed  in  producing  provisions  for  the 
army.  All  his  surplus  went  that  way,  while  he  had  two  men, 
abler  bodied  than  he  was,  fighting  for  him  in  the  field.  Who 
would  say  that  such  a  man  is  disloyal  to  the  cause,  if,  believing 
in  his  heart  that  he  was  not  liable  under  his  contract,  as  he  sup 
posed,  with  his  government,  he  should  appeal  to  the  courts  to 
decide  the  question  whether  he  is  liable  under  the  law  or  not  ? 
As  to  the  law  allowing  substitutes  in  the  first  instance,  and  then 
the  law  abrogating  or  annulling  it,  and  calling  the  principals  into 
the  field,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  What  I  maintain  is,  that  it  is 
the  great  constitutional  right  of  any  and  every  party  affected  by 
the  last  of  these  acts  on  the  subject,  to  have  the  question  of  his 
legal  liability  judicially  determined  if  he  chooses,  and  then  as  a 
good  law-abiding  citizen  act  accordingly. 

Take  another  illustration  of  the  practical  workings  of  the  act. 
Congress  by  law  exempted  from  conscription  such  State  officers 
as  the  legislatures  of  the  respective  States  might  designate  as 
proper  to  be  retained  for  State  purposes.  At  your  last  session 
you,  by  resolution,  designated  all  the  civil  and  militia  officers  of 
the  State.  A  late  order  has  been  issued  by  General  Cooper,  as 
is  seen  in  the  papers,  doubtless  under  order  from  the  secretary 
of  war,  to  enrol  and  send  to  camp  a  large  number  of  these  offi 
cers — amongst  others,  justices  of  the  peace,  tax  receivers  and 
collectors.  This  order  is  clearly  against  the  law  of  Congress 
and  your  solemn  resolution.  It  is  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  in  the  very  case  in 
which  they  sustained  the  power  of  Congress  to  raise  troops  by 
conscription,  but  in  which  they  held  that  the  power  was  limited, 
and  that  the  civil  officers  of  the  States  could  not  be  constitu 
tionally  conscripted.  I  use  the  word  conscripted  purposely — I 
know  there  is  no  such  word  in  the  English  language — neither  is 
there  any  such  word  as  conscribe,  the  one  usually  in  vogue  now  a 
days.  A  new  word  had  to  be  coined  for  a  process  or  mode  of 
raising  armies,  unheard  of  and  undreamed  of  by  our  ancestors, 
and  I  choose  to  coin  one  which  best  expresses  my  idea  of  it. 
But  under  this  order  of  General  Cooper,  is  it  not  the  right  of 
these  officers,  is  it  not  the  right  of  the  State,  to  have  the  question 
of  their  liability  to  conscription  determined  by  the  judiciary  f 
Is  it  not  the  high  duty  of  Congress  to  compel  the  secretary  of 


SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDEKACY.    777 

war  and  General  Cooper  to  abide  by  that  decision  and  to  obey 
their  own  laws,  instead  of  attempting  to  close  the  doors  of  the 
courts  against  the  adjudication  of  all  such  matters  that  come 
within  the  sphere  of  their  constitutional  duties. 

Again,  Congress  by  the  last  section  of  the  first  conscript  act, 
declared  that  all  who  were  or  should  be  subject  to  it  might,  pre 
vious  to  enrolment,  volunteer  in  any  companies  then  in  the 
service.  Notwithstanding  this  express  law  of  Congress,  securing 
the  right  of  any  person  liable  to  conscription,  to  volunteer  in 
any  company  then  in  the  service  previous  to  enrolment,  General 
Cooper  has  issued  an  order,  by  direction  of  the  secretary  of  war, 
doubtless,  denying  this  right  to  volunteer  in  any  company  then 
in  existence,  unless  the  number  in  such  company  is  less  than 
sixty-four  men.  Under  this  illegal  order  a  number  of  as  brave, 
gallant,  chivalrous,  noble  spirited  youths,  as  ever  went  forth  to 
battle  for  their  country  and  peril  their  lives  for  constitutional 
liberty,  will  be  deprived  of  their  birthright — the  right  to  have 
questions  of  law,  affecting  their  liberty,  determined  by  the  courts 
— if  this  act,  closing  courts  against  them,  shall  be  held  to  be 
valid !  Tell  me  not  that  this  act  affects  none  but  traitors,  spies, 
and  the  disloyal.  I  heard  not  long  since  of  a  case  in  Albany ; 
a  father  carried  his  son  to  the  district  enrolling  officer ;  he  had 
just  arrived  at  the  age  when  he  was  liable  to  conscription ;  he 
never  wished  him  to  go  to  the  war  as  a  conscript.  His  older 
brothers  had  gone  before  him,  they  went  out  early  in  the  war  as 
volunteers,  and  then  formed  part  of  that  living  wall  of  freemen 
which  still  stands  between  us  and  a  ruthless  foe.  He  told  the 
enrolling  officer,  in  substance,  that  he  had  brought  his  boy,  the 
Benjamin  of  his  heart,  as  another  offering  on  the  altar  of  his 
country.  He  was  going  as  a  volunteer  under  that  clause  of  the 
act  alluded  to  ;  he  had  selected  the  company  to  which  his  brothers 
belonged.  He  was  told  this  could  not  be  allowed.  At  this,  the 
father  was  greatly  surprised  and  mortified,  as  may  be  readily 
understood  ;  he  insisted  upon  the  rights  of  his  son.  Great  as  his 
surprise  was  at  first,  however,  greater  was  it  still  to  be.  The 
son  was  ordered  to  jail,  to  be  sent  to  the  camp  of  instruction,  to 
be  assigned  to  any  company  his  officers  might  choose.  The  high 
spirited  youth,  scorning  conscription,  offering  himself  as  a  volun 
teer,  asking  nothing  but  his  legal  rights,  instead  of  being  sent 
on  with  cheers  by  the  crowd,  and  a  father's  parting  blessing,  was 
sent  to  jail  as  a  felon  ! 

Can  any  one  say  that  this  was  not  a  most  shameful  outrage  ? 

It  is,  however,  but  one  of  a  thousand  cases  like  it  that  may 
occur,  and  probably  will  occur,  should  this  law  be  held  to  be  con 
stitutional  ;  and  if  the  doors  of  the  courts  are  to  be  closed  against 
all  who  may  be  ordered  to  the  military  service,  without  any  regard 
to  law.  I  have  here  two  letters  which  will  further  illustrate  how 
this  act  will  work.  They  are  both  addressed  to  the  governor. 
One  is  from  a  Mr.  Samuel  H.  Parker,  written  in  Charleston  jail. 


778    SPEECH  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY. 

[Here  Mr.  Stephens  read  the  letter,  stating  that  the  writer  was 
a  native  Georgian.  That  he  lived  in  Whitfield  county.  That 
he  was  forty-seven  years  of  age,  as  the  record  would  show,  then 
in  Whitfield  county.  That  he  was  at  his  home  with  his  wife, 
(who  was  then  sick,)  with  ten  small  children,  on  the  21th  of 
February,  of  this  year,  when  a  party  on  horses  came  and  arrested 
him,  and  carried  him  to  Dalton.  And  from  Dalton,  he  was 
carried  to  Atlanta.  He  protested  that  he  was  over  age,  and  not 
liable  to  military  duty ;  that  he  was  forty-seven  years  old.  He 
was  told  that  that  was  the  right  age  to  make  a  soldier  in  South 
Carolina,  and  he  was  sent  on  to  Charleston,  where  he  was  in 
jail.  He  appealed  to  the  governor  of  his  native  State,  and  the 
State  of  his  residence,  to  have  justice  done  him.]  Of  this  Mr. 
Parker,  (said  Mr.  Stephens,)  I  know  nothing,  except  what  is 
stated  in  this  letter.  It  may  be  false,  and  yet  it  may  be  true. 
If  true,  justice  ought  to  be  done  to  a  man  so  greatly  outraged 
and  wronged.  But  whether  true  or  false,  the  courts  ought 
never  to  be  closed  against  an  inquiry  into  the  facts,  and  never 
will  be,  so  long  as  personal  security  has  any  protection  in  this 
country. 

The  other  letter  is  from  the  Hon.  John  Oats,  a  member  of 
this  House,  from  the  county  of  Murray.  It  is  dated  the  llth  of 
this  month,  the  day  after  the  meeting  of  this  session.  [Here 
Mr.  Stephens  read  Mr.  Oats'  letter,  stating  that  he  was  detained 
at  Atlanta,  under  very  painful  circumstances.  His  oldest  son, 
who  had  been  in  the  army,  was  subject  to  epilepsy,  and  had  been 
discharged  in  consequence.  That  afterward,  he  had  been  carried 
before  a  board  of  physicians,  who  pronounced  his  case  incurable, 
and  he  was  given  a  certificate  of  final  discharge,  on  the  grounds 
of  permanent  disability.  That  on  the  morning  Mr.  Oats  left 
home  for  Milledgeville,  the  provost-guard  at  Dalton,  went  to  his 
house  at  Spring  Place,  and  carried  his  son  off  to  Dalton.  They 
carried  him  from  there  to  Cartersville,  to  Captain  Starr,  the 
enrolling  officer  for  the  tenth  Congressional  district,  and  he, 
knowing  all  about  his  case,  sent  him  back  to  Dalton,  stating  in 
writing  on  the  order,  that  he  was  sent  there  under,  that  accord 
ing  to  law,  and  his  orders  from  the  war  department,  he  was  not 
liable  to  conscription.  That  on  his  return  to  Dalton,  they  put 
him  in  irons,  and  assigned  him  to  Charleston,  to  go  into  the  for 
tifications,  and  that  he  expected  him  in  Atlanta  that  evening. 
He  was  waiting  with  the  best  counsel  he  could  get,  to  see  if  there 
was  any  virtue  in  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  He  asked  that  the 
governor  would  get  some  member  to  procure  for  him  leave  of 
absence  from  the  House.] 

Well  for  Mr.  Oats  (said  Mr.  Stephens)  and  his  afflicted  son, 
there  is  some  virtue  yet  in  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

But  what  virtue  would  be  in  it,  if  it  is  denied  under  this  act, 
to  all  who  attempt  to  avoid  military  service.  Nothing  could  in 
duce  me  to  read  such  letters  on  such  an  occasion,  but  a  sense  of 


SPEECH   ON  THE  STATE   OF  THE   CONFEDERACY.          779 

duty,  to  show  you  what  will  be  the  state  of  things  all  over  the 
country,  under  the  operation  of  such  a  law,  when  orders  are  is 
sued  for  its  enforcement,  and  to  put  you  on  your  guard,  against 
the  flippant  phrase  that  the  act  will  eifect  none  but  traitors, 
spies,  and  disloyal  people.  Had  .  it  been  in  operation,  had  ^he 
courts  regarded  it,  Mr.  Oats'  son,  who  had  served  his  country 
faithfully,  as  long  as  he  was  able,  might  now  have  been  beyond 
remedy,  beyond  redress,  and  beyond  hope.  Will  you  say,  can 
you  say,  that  the  courts  ought  to  be,  or  can  be  closed,  against 
such  monstrous  wrongs?  Will  you  not  rather  put  upon  the 
attempt  to  do  it,  the  seal  of  your  unqualified  condemnation  ? 
Tell  me  not  to  put  confidence  in  the  President.  That  he  will 
never  abuse  the  power  attempted  to  be  lodged  in  his  hands. 
The  abuses  may  not  be  by  the  President.  He  will  not  execute 
the  military  orders  that  will  be  given.  This  will  necessarily  de 
volve  upon  subordinates,  scattered  all  over  the  country,  from 
the  Potomac  to  the  Rio  Grande.  He  would  have  to  possess  two 
superhuman  attributes,  to  prevent  abuses — omniscience  and  om 
nipresence. 

These  things  our  forefathers  knew,  and  hence  they  threw 
around  the  personal  security  of  the  free  citizens  of  this  country 
a  firmer,  safer,  surer  protection  than  confidence  in  any  man, 
against  abuses  of  power,  even  when  exercised  under  his  own 
eye  and  by  himself.  That  protection  is  the  shield  of  the  constitu 
tion.  See  to  it  that  you  do  not  in  an  evil  hour  tear  this  shield 
o.l'and  cast  it  away,  or  permit  others  to  do  it,  lest  in  a  day  you 
wot  not  of,  you  sorely  repent  it. 

Enough  has  been  said,  without  dwelling  longer  upon  this 
point,  to  show,  without  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  the  act 
does  affect  others,  and  large  classes  of  others,  than  spies,  trai 
tors,  bridge-burners,  and  disloyal  persons — that  the  very  gist  of 
the  act,  whatever  may  have  been  the  intent  or  the  motive,  will 
operate  most  wrongfully  and  oppressively  on  as  loyal,  as  patri 
otic,  and  as  true  men  as  ever  inherited  a  freeman's  birthright 
under  a  southern  sky.  You  have  also  seen  that  there  is  and 
can  be  no  necessity  for  the  passage  of  such  an  act,  even  if  it 
were  constitutional,  in  the  case  of  spies,  traitors,  or  conspira 
tors.  For,  if  there  be  a  traitor  in  the  confederacy — if  such  a 
monster  exists — if  any  well  grounded  suspicion  is  entertained 
that  any  such  exists,  why  not  have  him  legally  arrested,  by  ju 
dicial  warrant,  upon  oath  or  affirmation,  setting  forth  probable 
cause,  and  then  he  can  be  held  under  a  constitutional  suspension 
of  the  privileges  of  the  writ — he  can  be  tried,  and  if  found  guilty, 
punished.  What  more  can  the  public  safety  by  possibility  re 
quire  ?  Why  dispense  with  the  oath  ?  Why  dispense  with  judi 
cial  warrants  ?  Why  put  it  in  the  power  of  &uy  man  on  earth  to 
order  the  arrest  of  another  on  a  simple  charge,  to  which  nobody 
will  swear  ?  Who  is  safe  under  such  a  law  ?  Who  knows,  when 
he  goes  forth,  when  or  whether  he  shall  ever  return  ?  The  Presi* 


780     SPEECH  ON"  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY. 

dent,  according  to  this  act,  is  to  have  power  to  arrest  and  im 
prison  whoever  he  pleases,  upon  a  bare  charge,  made,  perhaps, 
by  an  enemy  of  disloyalty,  the  party  making  the  charge  not 
being  required  to  swear  to  it !  Who,  I  repeat,  is  safe,  or  would 
be,  under  such  a  law  ?  What  were  the  real  objects  of  the  act,  in 
these  clauses,  as  to  treason,  disloyalty,  and  the  others,  I  do  not 
kiiow.  To  me  it  seems  to  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was 
to  reach  real  traitors  and  persons  guilty  of  the  offences  stated. 
For  that  object  could  have  been  easily  accomplished  without  any 
such  extraordinary  power.  I  was  not  at  Richmond  when  the 
act  passed.  I  heard  none  of  the  discussions,  and  knew  none 
of  the  reasons  asssigned,  either  by  the  President  in  asking  it,  or 
the  members  or  senators  who  voted  for  it.  I  was  at  home,  pros 
trate  with  disease,  from  which  I  have  not  yet  recovered,  and  by 
reason  of  which  I  address  you  with  so  much  feebleness  on  this 
occasion.  But  I  have  heard  that  one  object  was  to  control  cer 
tain  elections  and  expected  assemblages  in  North  Carolina,  to 
put  a  muzzle  upon  certain  presses,  and  a  bit  in  the  mouth  of  cer 
tain  speakers  in  that  State.  If  this  be  so,  I  regard  it  the  more 
dangerous  to  public  liberty.  I  know  nothing  of  the  politics  of 
North  Carolina — nothing  of  the  position  of  her  leading  public 
men.  If  there  be  traitors  there,  let  them  be  constitutionally  ar 
rested,  tried,  and  punished.  No  fears  need  be  indulged  of  bare 
error  there,  or  anywhere  else,  if  reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it. 
The  idea  is  incredible,  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  that  gal 
lant  and  noble  old  State,  which  was  foremost  in  the  war  of  the 
revolution  in  her  ever  memorable  Mecklenburg  declaration  of 
Independence  can,  if  let  alone,  ever  be  induced  to  prove  them 
selves  so  recreant  to  the  principles  of  their  fathers  as  to  abandon 
our  cause  and  espouse  the  despotism  of  the  North.  Her  people, 
ahead  of  all  the  colonies,  first  flaunted  in  the  breeze  the  flag  of 
Independence  and  State  sovereignty.  She  cannot  be  the  first  to 
abandon  it — no,  never  !  I  cannot  believe  it !  If  her  people  were 
really  so  inclined,  however,  we  could  not  prevent  it  by  force — we 
could  not,  under  the  constitution,  if  we  would,  and  we  ought  not 
if  we  could.  Ours  is  a  government  founded  upon  the  consent  of 
sovereign  States,  and  will  be  itself  destroyed  by  the  very  act 
whenever  it  attemps  to  maintain  or  perpetuate  its  existence  by 
force  over  its  respestive  members.  The  surest  way  to  check  any 
inclination  in  North  Carolina  to  quit  our  sisterhood,  if  any  such 
really  exist  even  to  the  most  limited  extent  amongst  her  people, 
is  to  show  them  that  the  struggle  is  continued  as  it  was  begun, 
for  the  maintenance  of  constitutional  liberty.  If,  with  this  great 
truth  ever  before  them,  a  majority  of  her  people  should  prefer 
despotism  to  liberty,  I  would  say  to  her,  as  to  a  "  wayward 
sister,  depart  in  peace."  I  want  to  see  no  Maryland  this  side  of 
the  Potomac. 

Another  serious  objectioji  to  the  measure,  showing  its  impolicy, 
16  the  effect  it  will  have  upon  our  cause  abroad.     I  have  never 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          781 

looked  to  foreign  intervention,  or  early  recognition,  and  do  not 
now.  European  governments  have  no  sympathy  with  either  side 
in  this  struggle.  They  are  rejoiced  to  see  professed  republicans 
cutting  each  other's  throats,  and  the  failure,  as  they  think,  of 
the  great  experiment  of  self-government  on  this  continent.  They 
saw  that  the  ISTorth  went  into  despotism  immediately  on  the 
separation  of  the  South,  and  their  fondest  hopes  and  expecta 
tions  are  that  the  same  destiny  awaits  us.  This  has  usually 
been  the  fate  of  republics.  This  is  the  sentiment  of  all  the  gov 
ernments  in  Europe.  But  we  have  friends  there,  as  you  heard 
last  night,  in  the  eloquent  remarks  of  the  gentleman  [Hon.  L.  Q. 
C.  LAMAR]  who  addressed  you  on  our  foreign  relations,  and  who 
has  lately  returned  from  those  countries.  Those  friends  are 
anxiously  and  hopefully  watching  the  issue  of  the  present  con 
flict.  In  speeches,  papers,  and  reviews  they  are  defending  our 
cause.  No  argument  used  by  them  heretofore  has  been  more 
effectual  than  the  contrast  drawn  between  the  federals  and  the 
confederates  upon  the  subject  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
Here,  notwithstanding  our  dangers  and  perils,  the  military  has 
always  been  kept  subordinate  to  the  civil  authorities.  Here  all  the 
landmarks  of  English  liberty  have  been  preserved  and  maintained, 
wiiiie  at  the  North  scarcely  a  vestige  of  them  is  left.  There, 
instead  of  courts  of  justice  with  open  doors,  the  country  is  dotted 
all  over  with  prisons  and  bastiles.  No  better  argument  in  be 
half  of  a  people  struggling  for  constitutional  liberty  could  have 
been  presented  to  arouse  sympathy  in  our  favor.  It  showed  that 
we  were  passing  through  a  fiery  furnace  for  a  great  cause,  and 
passing  through  unscathed.  It  showed  that  whatever  may  be 
the  state  of  things  at  the  North,  that  at  the  South  at  least  the 
great  light  of  the  principles  of  self-government,  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  established  on  this  continent  by  our  ancestors,  which  was 
looked  to  with  encouragement  and  hope  by  the  down-trodden  of 
all  nations,  was  not  yet  extinguished,  but  was  still  burning 
brightly  in  the  hands  of  their  southern  sons,  even  burning  the 
more  brightly  from  the  intensity  of  the  heat  of  the  conflict  in 
which  we  are  engaged.  To  us,  in  deed  and  in  truth,  is  com 
mitted  the  hopes  of  the  world  as  to  the  capacity  and  ability  of 
man  for  self-government.  Let  us  see  to  it  that  these  hopes  and 
expectations  do  not  fail.  Let  us  prove  ourselves  equal  to  the 
high  mission  before  us. 

One  other  view  only :  that  relates  to  the  particularly  dangerous 
tendency  of  this  act  in  the  present  state  of  the  country,  and  the 
policy  indicated  by  Congress.  Conscription  has  been  extended 
to  embrace  all  between  seventeen  and  fifty  years  of  age.  It  can 
not  be  possible  that  the  intention  and  object  of  that  measure  was 
really  to  call  and  keep  in  the  field  all  between  those  ages.  The 
folly  and  ruinous  consequences  of  such  a  policy  is  too  apparent. 
Details  are  to  be  made,  and  must  be  made,  to  a  large  extent. 
The  effect  and  the  object  of  this  measure,  therefore,  was  not  to 


782  SPEECH   ON   THE    STATE    OF   THE    CONFEDERACY. 

raise  armies  or  procure  soldiers,  but  to  put  all  the  population  of 
the  country  between  those  ages  under  military  law.  Whatever 
the  object  was,  the  effect  is  to  put  much  the  larger  portion  of  the 
labor  of  the  country,  both  white  and  slave,  under  the  complete 
control  of  the  President.  Under  this  system  almost  all  the  use 
ful  and  necessary  occupations  of  life  will  be  completely  under 
the  control  of  one  man.  No  one  between  the  ages  of  seventeen 
and  fifty  can  tan  your  leather,  make  your  shoes,  grind  your 
grain,  shoe  your  horse,  lay  your  plough,  make  }7our  wagon, 
repair  your  harness,  superintend  your  farm,  procure  your  salt, 
or  perform  any  other  of  the  necessary  vocations  of  life,  (except 
teachers,  preachers,  and  physicians,  and  a  very  few  others,)  with 
out  permission  from  the  President.  This  is  certainly  an  extra 
ordinary  and  a  dangerous  power.  In  this  connection  take  in 
view  this  habeas  corpus  suspension  act,  by  which  it  has  been 
shown  the  attempt  is  made  to  confer  upon  him  the  power  to 
order  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  any  man,  woman  or  child 
in  the  confederacy,  on  the  bare  charge,  unsupported  by  oath, 
of  any  of  the  acts  for  which  arrests  are  allowed  to  be  made. 
Could  the  whole  country  be  more  completely  under  the  power 
and  control  of  one  man,  except  as  to  life  or  limb?  Could  dictato 
rial  powers  be  more  complete  ?  In  this  connection  consider,  also, 
the  strong  appeals  that  have  been  made  for  some  time  past,  by 
leading  journals,  openty  for  a  dictator.  Coming  events  often 
cast  their  shadows  before.  Could  art  or  ingenity  have  devised 
a  shorter  or  a  surer  cut  to  that  end,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
than  the  whole  polic}7  adopted  by  the  last  Congress,  and  now 
before  you  for  consideration  ?  As  to  the  objects,  or  motives, 
or  patriotism  of  those  who  adopted  that  policy,  that  is  not  the 
question.  The  presentation  of  the  case  as  it  stands  is  what  your 
attention  is  called  to.  Nor  is  the  probability  of  the  abuse  of  the 
power  the  question.  Some,  doubtless,  think  it  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  country  to  have  a  dictator.  Such  are  not  unfre- 
quently  to  be  met  with  whose  intelligence,  probity,  and  general 
good  character  in  private  life  are  not  to  be  questioned,  however 
much  their  wisdom,  judgment,  and  principles  may  be  deplored. 
In  such  times,  when  considering  the  facts  as  they  exist,  and 
looking  at  the  policy  indicated  in  all  its  bearings,  the  most  ill- 
timed,  delusive,  and  dangerous  words  that  can  be  uttered  are,  can 
you  not  trust  the  President  ?  Have  you  not  confidence  in  him 
that  he  will  not  abuse  the  powers  thus  confided  in  him  ?  To  all 
such  questions  my  answer  is,  without  any  reflection  or  imputa 
tion  against  our  present  chief  magistrate,  that  the  measure  of 
my  confidence  in  him,  and  all  other  public  officers,  is  the  consti 
tution.  To  the  question  of  whether  I  would  not  or  cannot  trust 
him  with  these  high  powers  not  conferred  by  the  constitution, 
my  answer  is  the  same  that  I  gave  to  one  who  submitted  a  plan 
for  a  dictatorship  to  me  some  months  ago:  "I  am  utterly 
opposed  to  every  thing  looking  to,  or  tending  toward  a  dictator- 


SPEECH   ON  THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          783 

ship  in  this  country.  Language  would  fail  to  give  utterance  to 
my  inexpressible  repugnance  at  the  bare  suggestion  of  such  a 
lamentable  catastrophe.  There  is  no  man  living,  and  not  one  of 
the  illustrious  dead,  whom,  if  now  living,  I  would  so  trust," 

In  any  and  every  view,  therefore,  I  look  upon  this  habeas  corpus 
suspension  act  as  unwise,  impolitic,  unconstitutional,  and  dan 
gerous  to  public  liberty. 

But  you  have  been  asked  what  can  you  do  ?  You  can  do 
much.  If  you  believe  the  act  to  be  unconstitutional,  you  can 
and  ought  so  to  declare  your  deliberate  judgment  to  be.  What 
can  you  do  ?  What  did  Kentucky  and  Virginia  do  in  1198-99, 
under  similar  circumstances  ?  What  did  Jefferson  do,  and  what 
did  Madison  do,  and  what  did  the  legislators  of  those  States 
then  do  ? 

Though  a  war  was  then  threatening  with  France — though 
armies  were  being  raised — though  Washington  was  called  from 
his  retirement  to  take  command  as  lieutenant-general — though 
it  was  said  then  as  now,  that  all  discussions  of  even  obnoxious 
measures  of  Congress  would  be  hurtful  to  the  public  cause,  they 
did  not  hesitate,  by  solemn  resolves  by  the  legislatures,  to 
declare  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  unconstitutional  and  utterly 
void.  Those  acts  of  Congress,  in  my  judgment,  were  not  more 
clearly  unconstitutional,  or  more  dangerous  to  liberty,  than  this 
act  now  under  review.  What  can  you  do  ?  You  can  invoke  its 
repeal,  and  ask  the  government  officials  and  the  people  in  the 
meantime,  to  let  the  question  of  constitutionality  be  submitted  to 
the  courts,  and  both  sides  to  abide  by  the  decision. 

Some  seem  to  be  of  the  opinion,  that  those  who  oppose  this 
act  are  for  a  counter-revolution.  No  such  thing;  I  am  for  no  coun 
ter-revolution.  The  object  is  to  keep  the  present  one,  great  in  its 
aims  and  grand  in  its  purposes,  upon  the  right  track — the  one  on 
which  it  was  started,  and  that  on  which  alone  it  can  attain  noble 
objects  and  majestic  achievements.  The  surest  way  to  prevent  a 
counter-revolution,  is  for  the  State  to  speak  out  and  declare  her 
opinions  upon  this  subject.  For  as  certain  as  day  succeeds 
night,  the  people  of  this  confederacy  will  never  live  long  in  peace 
and  quiet  under  any  government  with  the  principles  of  this  act 
settled  as  its  established  policy,  and  held  to  be  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  its  fundamental  law.  The  action  of  the 
Virginia  legislature  in  1799,  saved  the  old  government,  beyond 
question,  from  a  counter  and  a  bloody  revolution  ;  kept  it  on  the 
right  track  for  sixty  years  afterward,  in  its  unparelleled  career 
of  growth,  prosperity,  development,  progress,  happiness,  and 
renown.  All  our  present  troubles,  North  and  South,  sprang 
from  violations  of  those  great  constitutional  principles  therein 
set  forth. 

Let  no  one,  therefore,  be  deterred  from  performing  his  duty 
on  this  occasion  by  the  cry  of  counter-revolution,  nor  by  the  cry 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  all,  in  this  hour  of  peril,  to  support  the  gov- 


784          SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF  THE   CONFEDERACY. 

ernment.  Our  government  is  composed  of  executive,  legisla 
tive  and  judicial  departments,  under  the  constitution.  He  most 
truly  and  fathfully  supports  the  government  who  supports  and 
defends  the  constitution.  Be  not  misled  by  this  cry,  or  that  you 
must  not  say  any  thing  against  the  administration,  or  you  will 
injure  the  cause.  This  is  the  argument  of  the  preacher,  who 
insisted  that  his  derelictions  should  not  be  exposed,  because  if 
they  were,  it  would  injure  his  usefulness  as  a  minister.  Derelict 
ministers  are  not  the  cause.  Listen  to  no  such  cry.  And  let  no 
one  be  influenced  by  that  other  cry,  of  the  bad  effect  such  discus 
sions  and  such  action  will  have  upon  our  gallant  citizen  soldiers 
in  the  field.  I  know  something  of  the  feeling  of  these  men.  I 
have  witnessed  their  hardships,  their  privations,  and  their  dis 
comforts  in  camp.  I  have  witnessed  and  ministered  to  their 
wants  and  sufferings  from  disease  and  wounds,  in  hospitals.  I 
know  something  of  the  sentiments  that  actuated  the  great  majority 
of  them,  when  they  quit  home,  with  all  its  endearments,  and 
went  out  to  this  war — not  as  mercenaries  or  human  machines,  but 
as  intelligent,  high-minded,  noble-spirited  gentlemen,  who  were 
proud  of  their  birthright  as  freemen,  and  "  who  knowing  their 
rights, "dared  maintain  them,  at  any  and  every  cost  and  sacrifice. 
The  old  Barons  who  extorted  Magna  Charta  from  their  oppressor 
and  wrongdoer  by  a  resort  to  arms,  did  not  present  a  grander 
spectacle  for  the  admiration  of  the  world  when  they  went  forth 
to  their  work,  thoroughly  imbued  with  a  sense  of  the  right  for 
the  right's  sake,  than  this  gallant  band  of  patriots  did  when  they 
went  forth  to  this  war,  inspired  with  no  motive  but  a  thorough 
devotion  to  and  ardent  attachment  for  constitutional  liberty.  To 
defend  this  and  maintain  it  inviolate  for  themselves  and  those 
who  should  come  after  them,  was  their  sole  object.  Their  ancient 
rights,  usages,  institutions,  and  liberties  were  threatened  by  an 
insolent  foe,  who  had  trampled  the  constitution  of  our  common 
ancestors  under  foot.  They  and  we  all  had  quit  the  Union,  when 
the  rights  of  all  of  us  were  no  longer  respected  under  it,  but  we 
had  rescued  the  constitution — the  ark  of  the  covenant — and 
this  is  what  they  went  forth  to  defend.  These  were  the  senti 
ments  with  which  your  armies  were  raised,  as  if  by  magic.  These 
are  the  sentiments  with  which  re-enlistments  for  the  war  have 
been  made.  These  are  the  sentiments  with  which  your  ranks 
would  have  been  filled  to  the  last  man  whose  services  can  be 
relied  upon  in  action  if  conscription  had  never  been  resorted  to. 
You  cannot,  therefore,  send  these  gallant  defenders  of  consti 
tutional  liberty,  a  more  cheering  message  than  that,  while  they 
are  battling  for  their  rights  and  the  common  rights  of  all  in  the 
field,  you  are  keeping  sacred  watch,  and  guard  over  the  same  in 
the  public  councils.  They  will  enter  the  fight  with  renewed 
vigor,  from  the  assurance  that  their  toil,  and  sacrifice  and  blood 
will  not  be  in  vain,  but  that  when  the  strife  is  over  and  inde 
pendence  is  acknowledged,  it  will  not  be  a  bare  name,  a  shadow 


SPEECH   ON   THE   STATE   OF   THE   CONFEDERACY.          785 

and  a  mockery,  but  that  with  it  they  and  their  children  after 
them  shall  enjoy  that  liberty  for  which  they  now  peril  all. 
Next  to  this,  the  most  encouraging  message  you  could  send 
them  is,  that  while  all  feel  that  the  brunt  of  the  fight  must  be 
borne  by  them,  and  the  only  sure  hope  of  success  is  in  the 
prowess  of  their  arms,  yet  every  possible  and  honorable  effort 
will  be  made  by  the  civil  departments  of  the  government  to  ter 
minate  the  struggle  by  negotiation  and  adjustment  upon  the 
principles  for  which  they  entered  the  contest. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  addressed  you  longer  than  I  expected  to 
be  able  to  do.  My  strength  will  not  allow  me  to  say  more.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  shall  ever  address  you  again,  or  see  you  again. 
Great  events  have  passed  since,  standing  in  this  place,  three 
3^ears  ago,  I  addressed  your  predecessors  on  a  similar  request, 
upon  the  questions  then  immediately  preceding  our  present 
troubles.  Many  who  were  then  with  us  have  since  passed  away 
— some  in  the  ordinary  course  of  life,  while  many  of  them  have 
fallen  upon  the  battle-field,  offering  up  their  lives  in  the  great 
cause  in  wrhich  we  are  engaged.  Still  greater  events  may  be  just 
ahead  of  us.  What  fate  or  fortune  awaits  you  or  me,  in  the  con 
tingencies  of  the  times,  is  unknown  to  us  all.  We  may  meet 
again,  or  we  may  not.  But  as  a  parting  remembrance,  a  lasting 
memento,  to  be  engraven  on  your  memories  and  your  hearts,  I 
warn  you  against  that  most  insidious  enemy  which  approaches 
with  her  syren  song,  "Independence  first  and  liberty  afterward." 
It  is  a  fatal  delusion.  Libert}'  is  the  animating  spirit,  the  soul 
of  our  system  of  government,  and  like  the  soul  of  man,  when 
once  lost  it  is  lost  forever.  There  is  for  it,  at  least,  no  redemption, 
except  through  blood.  Never  for  a  moment  permit  }7ourselves 
to  look  upon  liberty,  that  constitutional  liberty  which  you 
inherited  as  a  birthright,  as  subordinate  to  independence.  The 
one  was  resorted  to  to  secure  the  other.  Let  them  ever  be  held 
and  cherished  as  objects  co-ordinate,  co-existent,  co-equal,  co-eval, 
and  forever  inseparable.  Let  them  stand  together  "  through  weal 
and  through  woe,"  and  if  such  be  our  fate,  let  them  and  us  all 
go  down  together  in  a  common  ruin.  Without  liberty,  I  would 
not  turn  upon  my  heel  for  independence.  I  scorn  all  indepen 
dence  which  does  not  secure  liberty.  I  warn  you  also  against 
another  fatal  delusion,  commonly  dressed  up  in  the  fascinating 
language  of,  "If  we  are  to  have  a  master,  who  would  not  prefer 
to  have  a  southern  one  to  a  northern  one?"  Use  no  such  lan 
guage.  Countenance  none  such.  Evil  communications  are  as 
corrupting  in  politics  as  in  morals. 

"  Vice  is  a  monster  of  such  hideous  mien, 
That  to  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  seen ; 
But  seen  too  oft',  familiar  with  her  face, 
We  first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace." 

I  would  not  turn  upon  my  heel  to  choose  between  masters. 
50 


786  LETTER   TO   HON.   JAMES   A.    SEDDOtf. 

I  was  not  born  to  acknowledge  a  master  from  either  the  North  or 
South.  I  shall  never  choose  between  candidates  for  that  office. 
Shall  never  degrade  the  right  of  suffrage  in  such  an  election.  I 
have  no  wish  or  desire  to  live  after  the  degradation  of  my  coun 
try,  and  have  no  intention  to  survive  its  liberties,  if  life  be  the 
necessary  sacrifice  of  their  maintenance  to  the  utmost  of  my 
ability,  to  the  bitter  end.  As  for  myself,  give  me  liberty  as 
secured  in  the  constitution  with  all  its  guaranties,  amongst 
which  is  the  sovereignty  of  Georgia,  or  give  me  death.  This  is 
my  motto  while  living,  and  I  want  no  better  epitaph  when  I  am 
dead. 

Senators  and  representatives  !  the  honor,  the  rights,  the  dignity, 
the  glory  of  Georgia,  are  in  your  hands !  See  to  it  as  faithful 
sentinels  upon  the  watchtower,  that  no  harm  or  detriment  come 
to  any  of  those  high  and  sacred  trusts,  while  committed  to  your 
charge.  (Immense  cheers  and  applause.) 


LETTER  TO  HON.  JAMES  A.  SEDDON,  SECRETARY 

OF  WAR. 

CRAWFORD VILLE,  GA.,  APRIL  29,  1864. 
HON.  JAMES  A.  SEDDON,  Sec.  of  War. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Your  letter  of  the  21st  instant  was  received  yester 
day.  In  my  letter  of  the  15th  instant  to  Judge  Campbell,  I  re 
ferred  in  a  postscript  to  the  fact  of  an  editor  of  this  State  having 
exhibited  an  extract  of  one  of  my  communications  to  you,  etc., 
barely  as  an  explanation  of  the  tone  and  manner  of  my  speaking 
to  him  as  I  did  on  certain  subjects  in  that  letter,  which  without 
the  explanation  might  have  appeared  strange  and  singular  to  him. 
The  tone  and  manner  alluded  to  were  simply  repeated  assurances 
that  my  sole  object  was  the  public  good,  however  strong  and 
earnest  the  expressions  used.  I  did  express  surprise  at  the  edi 
tor's  having  the  extract  referred  to,  but  no  indignation.  I  felt 
none  such.  How  the  editor  became  possessed  of  that  portion  of 
my  communication  I  did  not  know,  and  I  added  most  truthfully 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  to  me.  I  saw,  to 
my  mortification,  that  the  editor  had  put  an  erroneous  construc 
tion  upon  my  motives  and  feelings  in  using  the  words  I  did.* 
I  did  not  know  but  that  others  who  had  seen  it,  had  put  a  like 
construction  upon  them,  and  hence  I  guarded  myself  against  any 
such  construction  of  my  motives  from  any  earnestness  of  expres- 

[*  Substance  of  extract  referred  to. — "This  is  my  judgment.  Consider 
it  for  what  it  is  worth.  The  day  may  come  when  it  will  be  considered  as 
worth  more  than  it  is  at  present." — ED.] 


LETTER   TO    HON.   JAMES   A.   SEDDON.  787 

eion  in  what  I  had  said  to  Judge  Campbell,  and  in  explanation  of 
my  reasons  for  thus  guarding  him  referred  to  the  fact  mentioned. 
The  editor  alluded  to  had  exhibited  (privately  not  published)  the 
extract  referred  to.  He  showed  it  as  evidence  of  my  "  bitterness, 
hostility  and  malignancy"  (I  quote  his  words)  against  the  admin 
istration.  Entertaining  no  such  feelings,  or  any  thing  kindred  to 
them,  I  did  not  wish  Judge  Campbell  to  draw  any  such  inference 
from  an}^  thing  I  said  to  him  upon  the  subjects  I  was  writing  to 
him  about,  however  strong  or  earnest  my  language  might  be. 

I  should  certainty  have  written  immediately  and  directly  to  you 
upon  the  subject,  if  I  had  attached  any  great  importance  to  the 
matter,  or  had  really  felt  any  thing  like  indignation  on  account 
of  it.  I  am  glad  Judge  Campbell  informed  you  of  what  I  said 
to  him  on  this  point.  From  what  you  say  I  can  now  readily 
account  for  the  editor  alluded  to  having  the  extract.  It  was  doubt 
less  furnished  by  some  of  the  subordinates  in  the  bureau  of  con 
scription  to  whom  it  was  referred.  You  cannot  possibly  regret 
more  sincerely  or  profoundly  my  disagreement  with  members  of 
the  administration  upon  some  of  the  late  measures  of  legisla 
tion  than  I  do  myself.  And  nothing  could  have  induced  me  to 
take  public  position  against  them,  but  a  sense  of  public  duty 
arising  from  a  strong  conviction  of  the  mischievous  ancl  danger 
ous  tendency  of  those  measures — founded  as  they  were,  in  my 
judgment,  upon  great  and  radical  errors.  But  in  this,  as  in  all 
differences  amongst  common  friends  in  a  great  common  cause, 
I  assure  }^ou  I  was  influenced  by  nothing  except  what  I  regarded 
as  the  public  good.  I  was  not  influenced  in  the  slightest  degree 
by  feelings  of  hostility  or  bitterness,  to  say  nothing  of  malignancy, 
toward  a  single  mortal  who  disagreed  with  me. 

And  while  I  am  writing  to  you  thus  frankly,  I  will  take  occa 
sion  to  say  that  I  see  and  hear  almost  daily  of  matters  involving 
the  deepest  interest  that  ought  to  be  corrected.  Such  at  least  is 
my  judgment;  and  I  give  it  to  3^011  for  what  it  is  worth.  Some 
of  these  I  mentioned  in  my  letter  to  Judge  Campbell ;  they 
relate  to  the  waste  and  misuse  of  the  tithes.  With  my  ideas  of 
this  war,  its  probable  duration  and  the  manner  in  which  it  can 
be  successfully  conducted  on  our  side,  I  think  the  greatest  dan 
ger  ahead  of  us,  under  the  present  policy,  is  the  ultimate  failure 
of  subsistence.  War,  in  one  view,  is  eminently  a  business  affair 
upon  a  large  and  magnificent  scale  ;  and  it  requires  eminently 
business  qualities  to  conduct  it  safely  and  successfully  against 
such  disadvantages  as  we  labor  under.  But  with  the  advantages 
we  possess  I  have  never  doubted  for  a  moment,  but  that  we  can 
wage  it  successfully  in  our  defence,  just  as  long  as  our  enemies 
shall  choose  to  prosecute  it,  if  our  resources  of  men  and  means 
are  properly  and  efficiently  wielded.  From  the  beginning  I  be 
lieved  it  would  very  probably  be  ultimately  a  war  for  our  subju 
gation  or  extermination.  This  opinion  I  gave  the  Virginia  con 
vention  in  April,  1861,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  my  speech 


788  LETTER    TO    HON.   JAMES   A.   SEDDON. 

before  that  bocty  ;  and  from  the  beginning  I  was  for  husbanding 
and  wielding  our  resources  with  this  view.  No  equal  number  of 
people  on  the  face  of  the  globe  ever  had  superior  elements  of 
power,  or  internal  resources  for  defence  than  we  had.  How  the 
great  elements  of  cotton  and  tobacco,  in  a  financial  point  of  view, 
were  neglected  against  my  early  and  earnest  appeals,  I  need  not 
now  say  any  thing — nor  need  I  now  say  any  thing  of  other  like 
errors  as  to  other  resources  I  could  mention.  These  things  are 
past.  We  have  now  to  deal  with  the  present,  looking  to  the  fu 
ture.  Our  finances  now  are  a  wreck.  Past  all  hope,  in  my  judg 
ment.  Just  where  I  was  fully  convinced  they  would  be,  and  so 
stated  repeatedly  and  sorrowfully  two  years'  ago,  when  the  first 
Congress,  under  the  permanent  constitution,  adjourned  without 
passing  a  tax  act,  or  making  any  provision  for  the  redemption  of 
the  issues  of  treasury  notes.  To  me  the  result  seemed  as  certain 
and  as  inevitable  as  other  results  seem  now  if  our  policy  is  not 
changed. 

To  be  brief  and  pointed,  our  present  reliance  for  sustaining  the 
war,  feeding  the  armies,  is  upon  the  substance  of  the  country — 
the  agricultural  productions  and  not  the  credit  of  the  govern 
ment.  The  tax  in  kind  or  tithe  is  the  surest  hope  ;  that  is  abun 
dant,  if  it  be  properly  and  wisely  managed.  But  under  present 
management  so  far  from  doing  the  good  it  ought  it  only  increases 
the  evil.  It  is  wasting  the  substance  of  the  country  without  sup 
plying  the  army  as  it  ought  to  do  entirely.  The  tithe  ought  to 
iced  the  army  without  the  expenditure  of  a  dollar  by  way  of  pur 
chase.  This  it  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  do  upon  the  most 
moderate  estimates;  and,  if  it  were  not,  then  our  cause,  if  the  war 
last  two  years  longer,  would  be  hopeless.  For  if  one  tenth  of  the 
food  produced  in  the  country  will  not  support  or  feed  the  armies, 
how  can  nine  tenths  support  or  keep  from  want  and  starvation 
the  rest  of  the  population  ?  I  suppose  the  whole  list  of  our  ra 
tion-drawers  does  not  exceed  six  hundred  thousand.  The  re 
maining  population  cannot  be  less  than  seven  or  eight  millions — 
perhaps  more.  I  have  not  the  census  before  me,  and  speak  in 
general  terms,  being  quite  certain  that  my  statements  are  within 
bounds.  Now  if  one  tenth  of  the  food  of  the  land  will  not  support 
six  hundred  thousand  men  with  the  horses  etc.  they  have,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  other  nine  tenths  cannot  support  the  remaining 
seven  or  eight  millions  with  the  stock  they  must  keep  to  pro 
duce  with.  The  government,  therefore,  or  those  administering 
the  government,  should  look  to  the  tithe  as  the  main  hope  and 
only  sure  reliance  for  the  support  of  the  army.  With  these  views 
premised,  I  now  come  to  the  errors  I  spoke  of.  From  what  I  see 
and  hear  I  am  at  this  time  of  the  opinion  that  what  ought  to  have 
supplied  the  army  for  twelve  months  will  be  exhausted  in  less 
than  six.  I  allude  specially  to  the  articles  of  corn  and  wheat. 
In  this  county,  small  and  poor  as  it  is,  thousands  of  bushels  of 
tithe  corn,  and  great  amount  of  forage,  have  been  fed  to  poor 


LETTER   TO   HON.  JAMES   A.   SEDDOtf.  789 

cattle,  bought  up  in  February  and  March  for  beef,  while  the  tithe 
pork  and  bacon  was  tmcolleeted  through  the  country.  Had  this 
been  used  now  the  grasses  of  summer  would  have  fattened  the 
beef  to  be  used  then,  without  consuming  the  tithe  forage  for 
the  army.  This  is  the  matter  I  alluded  to  in  my  letter  to  Judge 
Campbell.  This,  it  is  true,  is  a  small  matter,  but  what  is  being 
done  here  is  doubtless  being  done  elsewhere.  And  since  that 
letter  I  have  learned  the  fact,  that  five  thousand  bushels  of 
tithe  corn  just  above  me  have  been  turned  over  to  a  party  to 
distil  into  whiskey,  right  on  the  railroad  and  within  two  da3^s 
transportation,  or  three  at  the  furthest,  to  Johnston's  army.  And 
these  five  thousand  bushels,  I  am  informed,  were  turned  over  to 
the  distiller  upon  a  contract,  that  for  the  five  thousand  bushels 
of  corn  he  was  to  deliver  five  thousand  gallons  of  whiskey  !  Out 
of  which  the  contractor  may  make  not  less  than  $125,000  in 
our  currency.  One  bushel  of  corn  in  winter,  it  is  said,  will  make 
two  gallons  of  whiskey,  and  besides,  it  is  said,  that  the  slops  from 
stills  will  fatten  as  much  pork  as  the  corn  would  if  fed  to  hogs  in 
its  natural  state.  With  this  view  the  contract  was  worth  even 
more  to  the  distiller.  Now,  I  assure  you,  I  think  this  radically 
wrong.  I  refer  to  it  with  no  spirit  of  captiousness,  but  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  having  such  errors  corrected.  This  contract  is  a 
small  affair  compared  with  others  on  the  same  principle.  It  is  to 
all  contracts  on  such  principles  I  call  your  attention.  In  the  first 
place,  the  army  can  do  better  without  whiskey  than  bread  ;  and,  in 
the  next  place,  if  we  have  corn  enough  to  put  any  into  whiskey, 
it  ought  to  be  so  used  in  sections  remote  from  railroads.  So  with 
all  corn  or  forage  fed  to  cattle  or  hogs  to  fatten  them  for  beef 
or  pork  for  the  army. 

The  provision  crop  last  year  was  abundant  for  all  our  popula 
tion  for  the  present  year,  for  the  army  and  people  at  home,  if  it 
be  economically  used.  But  I  sincerely  fear  it  will  not  be  next 
year.  The  policy  of  impressing  provisions  without  paying  mar 
ket  price  will  greatly  lessen  production  of  itself;  this  was  the 
case  when  there  was  confidence  in  the  credit  of  the  government. 
But  that  confidence  is  now  lost  by  reason  of  the  late  financial  and 
currency  acts.  I  assure  you  it  is  lost.  People  may  not  be  as 
candid  in  telling  you  the  truth  as  I  am ;  but  the  fact  is  so,  and 
wise  men  should  act  accordingly.  I  mean  wise  statesmen.  The 
government  cannot  afford  to  buy  provisions  at  the  market  price  in 
treasury  notes  six  months  to  come,  with  any  expectation  of  ever 
redeeming  their  issues  dollar  for  dollar  in  specie  ;  and  to  continue 
to  issue  them  with  this  semblance  of  integrity  of  purpose,  will  but 
result  in  greater  mischief  in  the  end.  The  tithe,  therefore,  should 
be  and  should  have  been  husbanded  and  guarded  as  gold;  not  a 
grain  of  corn  or  blade  of  grass  should  have  been  wasted,  or  lost, 
or  misapplied. 

Our  production  of  provisions  this  year  will  be  greatty  lessened 
from  another  cause.  That  is  the  general  disarrangement  of  labor, 


790  LETTER    TO    HON.   H.   V.   JOHNSON. 

and  the  management  of  large  planting  interests,  as  well  as  small, 
under  the  last  military  act.  The  uncertainty  of  whether  parties 
could  get  what  is  called  details,  has  caused  many  to  make  arrange 
ments  to  suit  themselves ;  many  have  gone  into  the  army  rather 
than  be  conscripted  ;  many  plantations  have  been  virtually  aban 
doned  to  the  negroes,  without  any  suitable  superintendent ;  many 
persons  still  at  home,  under  the  uncertainty  of  getting  details,  are 
failing  to  plant  their  usual  crops.  And  the  bare  absence  from 
home  at  this  season  of  the  year,  in  going  to  and  returning  from 
camp  to  present  their  papers  and  look  after  them,  will  tell  upon 
the  crops  even  if  they  should  ultimate!}7-  be  detailed.  I  speak  of 
what  I  see  around  me,  and  don't  for  a  moment  suppose  I  am  say 
ing  this  to  you  with  any  other  view  than  to  present  a  fact  which 
is  important  for  you  to  know.  What  is  the  case  here  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  is  the  case  elsewhere.  In  my  judgment 
this  organization  of  what  is  now  called  the  reserve  force  is 
almost  a  farce.  It  would  be  indeed  a  farce  if  it  were  not  for 
the  serious  consequences  attending  it.  There  will  hardly  be  as 
many  ablebodied  men  sent  to  the  army  under  its  operation,  as 
there  are  useless  drones  and  consumers  engaged  in  it.  As  a 
reserved  corps,  to  be  relied  on  in  emergency,  the  State  militia 
organization  would  have  been  much  more  efficient,  and  the  agri 
cultural  or  other  interests  would  not  have  been  so  much  deranged 
by  relying  on  that.  But  enough  of  this  ;  I  find  that  I  am  writing 
much  more  than  I  intended  when  I  first  set  out.  What  I  have 
said  is  with  great  freedom  and  frankness,  and  with  a  profound 
sense  of  the  great  interest  at  stake.  I  trust  you  will  receive  it 
for  what  it  is  worth  simply  as  a  matter  of  opinion  and  judgment, 
and  as  from  one  friend  to  another  conferring  together  upon  ques 
tions  in  which  each  feels  a  like  interest. 

I  hope  to  be  in  Richmond  soon,  when  I  can  personally  confer 
more  at  large  upon  these  and  kindred  questions,  if  it  be  agreea 
ble  to  you.  I  am  at  present  detained  on  some  business,  con 
nected  with  the  public  service.  I  hope  to  be  able  to  leave  in  a 
few  days.  My  health  is  much  better,  though  not  yet  restored  to 
its  usual  standard.  With  sentiments  of  the  highest  esteem,  I 
remain,  Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


LETTER  TO  HON.  HERSCHEL  V.  JOHNSON,  OF  GA. 

CRAWFORD VILLE,  GEORGIA,  22  JUNE,  1864. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : — In  my  letter  of  yesterday,  long  as  it  was,  I 
omitted  some  points  that  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  in  replying 
to  yours  of  the  30th  ultimo.  You  will  therefore  excuse  me,  I 
trust,  for  resuming  the  subject  this  morning. 

The  first  of  these  omitted  points,  that  now  occurs  to  me,  is  what 


LETTER  TO   HON.   H.   V.   JOHNSON.  791 

you  say  of  the  reason  assigned  by  some,  why  Gov.  Brown  had 
not  sent  on  the  resolutions  passed  by  our  legislature.  Why  he 
had  not  sent  them,  I  do  not  know.  Perhaps  he  had,  and  some 
miscarriage  of  the  mail  attended  them.  Perhaps  he  had  not, 
because  he  was  not  directed  to  send  them.  How  this  is,  I  do  not 
know.  But  if  he  has  not  sent  them,  I  feel  confident  that  his 
motives  in  not  doing  so,  or  in  withholding  them,  could  not  have 
been  such  as  you  mention  some  had  attributed  to  him.  The 
resolution  expressing  "undiminished  confidence"  in  the  President, 
was,  I  think,  not  connected  with  either  set  of  resolutions  on 
public  affairs — either  the  habeas  corpus  or  the  peace  resolutions. 
It  was  a  distinct  and  separate  resolution.  This  is  my  remem 
brance  ;  and,  if  I  am  right  in  it,  he  could  have  withheld  that  if  he 
chose,  and  sent  on  the  others.  But  then,  I  do  not  think  Gov. 
Brown  regarded  either  that  resolution  or  the  others  in  the  light 
in  which,  as  you  say,  some  are  inclined  to  think  he  did.  I  judge  him 
by  myself.  I  think  I  took  as  much  interest  in  the  passage  of  the 
habeas  corpus  resolutions  as  anybody  did  or  could ;  and  I  assure 
you  much  greater  and  higher  objects  by  far  occupied,  filled,  and 
absorbed  my  mind,  than  the  censure  of  the  President.  These 
related  to  the  welfare  of  millions  living,  and  millions  unborn — 
transcendently  beyond  in  importance  the  contracted  considera 
tion  of  the  position  or  popularity  of  any  man  living  or  dead ! 
Would  it  not  be  humiliating,  and  almost  degrading  to  human 
nature,  to  suppose  that  Washington,  in  his  ever-memorable 
address  to  the  army,  in  March,  1783 — the  greatest  speech  I  have 
often  thought,  all  things  considered,  that  was  ever  made  by  man 
(the  speech  he  made  in  reply  to  the  anonymous  appeal  that  had 
been  made  to  the  army,  to  take  the  redress  of  their  Wrongs  into 
their  own  hands) — would  it  not,  I  say,  be  humiliating  and  almost 
degrading  to  human  nature  to  suppose,  that  in  that  noblest  exhibi 
tion  of  patriotism  upon  record,  that  Washington  was  influenced 
by  no  higher  object  than  to  censure  or  put  down  the  supposed 
author  of  that  appeal  ?  I  do  not  claim  for  Gov.  Brown,  or  myself, 
the  exalted  position  of  Washington,  but  I  give  the  illustration  in 
vindication  of  the  honor  and  dignity  of  human  nature,  degraded 
as  it  is,  to  show  that  upon  great  occasions  it  is  possible  for  the 
mind  and  soul  to  be  elevated  above  the  low  and  grovelling  pas 
sions,  which  the  reason  assigned  for  Gov.  Brown's  motives  pre 
supposes.  And  as  I  think  it  hardly  probable  that  Armstrong  (I 
believe  that  was  the  name  of  the  supposed  author  of  the  appeal) 
entered  the  mind  of  Washington  at  that  time,  so  I  think  it  hardly 
probable  that  Gov.  Brown  thought  of  President  Davis  in  the 
connection  or  with  the  view  attributed  to  him.  He  of  course  did 
not  approve  of  President  Davis'  agency  in  the  passage  of  the  act, 
or  his  sanction  of  it ;  nor  did  I.  This  was  a  source  of  deep  pain 
and  mortification  to  me,  and  I  think  it  was  to  him.  I  was  with 
him  a  great  deal.  But  the  objects  expressed  by  him,  and  certainly 
entertained  by  me,  were  far  higher  than  the  bare  expression  of 


792  LETTER   TO    HON.   H.   V.   JOHNSON. 

this  disapprobation  of  the  President's  conduct.  That  was  not 
thought  of  by  me  further  than  as  an  argument,  or  the  expression 
of  popular  feeling  upon  a  vital  question  affecting  public  rights,  it 
might  cause  him  to  review  the  subject,  arid  induce  him  to  change 
or  modify  his  policy  in  reference  to  it.  Even  this  incidental 
effect  was  the  source  of  no  pleasure  or  gratification.  It  was,  on 
the  contrary,  disagreeable  and  painful.  My  opinion  is  that  Gov. 
Brown's  feelings  and  views  upon  the  subject  were  very  similar 
to  my  own.  I  believe,  from  all  that  I  have  seen  of  him,  that  he  is 
an  ardent  friend  of  the  cause — the  cause  of  constitutional  liberty 
— that  his  whole  soul  is  in  the  contest  with  this  object,  and  has 
been  from  the  beginning ;  that  his  everjr  effort  and  every  act  is 
made  and  done  with  a  view  to  secure  its  success  ;  that  so  far 
from  courting  or  seeking  points  of  controversy  with  the  head  of 
the  confederate  government,  his  earnest  desire  is  and  has  been 
to  keep  that  government  on  that  line  of  policy  on  which  alone  he 
thinks  success  is  attainable — success  not  in  achieving  indepen 
dence  only,  but  success  in  the  maintenance  of  constitutional 
liberty.  He  is  as  anxious,  I  believe,  for  harmony  between  the 
action  of  the  State  and  confederate  governments  as  any  man  can 
be,  but  for  the  sake  of  harmony  he  can  never  surrender  principles, 
which  he  thinks  if  surrendered  will  be  attended  with  a  loss  of 
great  essential  rights.  When  he  finds  himself  differing  from  the 
President,  whether  he  be  right  or  wrong  in  the  points  of  differ 
ence,  justice  to  him  requires  it  to  be  said,  I  think,  that  the  cause 
of  difference  is  a  source  to  him,  not  of  gratification,  but  of  the 
deepest  regret  and  pain.  I  know  this  is  the  case  with  myself, 
and  I  believe  it  to  be  the  same  with  him.  Moreover,  with  regard 
to  that  restitution  which  it  has  been  supposed  that  Gov.  Brown 
had  such  opposition  to — the  one  complimenting  the  President,  or 
expressing  undiminished  confidence  in  him — I  will  add,  that  it 
was  offered  by  one  of  the  warmest  advocates  of  the  action  of  the 
majority.  It  was  shown  to  me  by  the  mover  before  it  was  intro 
duced.  I  had  no  objection  to  its  passage  by  the  legislature,  and 
I  suppose  that  Gov.  Brown  had  none  ;  especially  as  the  object 
stated  for  offering  it  was  to  rebut  the  charge  that  the  majority 
resolutions  were  intended  as  a  mere  censure  of  the  President,  and 
got  up  with  a  view  of  raising  a  party  in  opposition  to  him.  The 
resolution  passed  without  a  dissenting  vote.  This  is  a  history 
of  the  matter.  Others  may  think  as  they  please ;  I  know  my 
objects,  views,  and  feelings.  They  looked  not  to  a  reproof  or 
censure  of  the  President,  nor  to  the  very  small  and  almost  con 
temptible  idea  of  raising  a  party  in  opposition  to  him  and  his 
administration.  They  looked  to  far  higher,  greater,  nobler  pur 
poses,  not  unaccompanied  with  an  ardent  and,  I  will  add,  a  patri 
otic  desire  to  direct  and  guide  the  President  and  his  administra 
tion  to  these  ends  and  results. 

Another   point  in  your   letter  of  the   30th  ultimo,  omitted  by 
me  yesterday,  was  the  probable  extension  of  the  habeas  corpus 


LETTER  TO    HON.   H.   V.   JOHNSON".  793 

suspension  to  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  and 
probably  to  the  end  of  the  war.  This  you  attribute  to  the  tone 
of  expression  on  that  measure  in  Georgia  and  North  Carolina. 
Its  harshness,  in  your  opinion,  I  judge  from  your  manner  of 
speaking  of  it,  tended  to  exasperate  the  advocates  of  the 
measure,  and  had  rendered  them  "  more  tenacious,"  etc.  Now 
allow  me  to  say  to  you  in  all  frankness,  candor,  and  sincerity, 
as  I  always  write  or  speak  to  you  on  all  subjects  and  on  all  occa 
sions,  that  I  think  you  are  entirely  mistaken  in  your  views  of  the 
cause  and  effect  in  this  matter.  I  was  not  at  all  surprised  at 
Vhat  you  stated  the  prospect  of  the  question  to  be,  but  I  differ 
entirely  as  to  the  effect  of  the  tone  of  expression  in  Georgia  and 
North  Carolina,  and  Mississippi  may  also  be  added.  I  looked 
upon  the  act  at  first  as  only  an  entering  wedge.  Power  is  ever 
insidious  in  its  encroachments,  or  at  least  is  usually  so.  Give  it 
an  inch  and  an  ell  is  soon  taken.  Various  attempts  had  been 
made  to  get  some  such  policy  fixed  upon  the  country  ;  all  had 
failed  of  perfect  success.  This  was  started  and  had  been 
adopted  under  far  more  favorable  auspices  than  any  of  its  pre 
decessors.  It  was,  therefore,  by  far  the  more  dangerous.  When 
error  once  gets  foothold,  it  seldom  ever  voluntarily  abandons  its 
advantage.  Power,  however  insidious  in  its  approaches,  is  ever 
insolent  in  a  position  once  gained.  The  only  sure  way  to  meet 
it  successfully,  is  with  a  bold,  unyielding  defiance  at  the  begin 
ning.  Whoever  trifles  with  it  or  dallies  with  it  at  first,  is  certain 
to  become  its  victim  in  the  end.  This  was  my  view  of  this 
matter  when  I  first  heard  of  the  passage  of  this  most  monstrous 
act.  The  only  sure  hope  of  preventing  its  principles  from 
becoming  fixed  upon  the  country,  was  such  an  immediate, 
prompt,  bold,  and  harsh,  if  you  please,  expression  of  popular 
indignation  and  reprobation  of  it  as  to  cause,  if  possible,  its  im 
mediate  abandonment.  It  was  no  time  for  soft  words  or  tem 
porizing.  Usurpation  never  did  and  never  will  yield  to  gentle 
suasion.  Power  never  let  go  its  grasp,  and  never  will  upon  mild 
entreaty.  I  speak  to  you  eternal  truths  in  all  soberness.  In 
this  instance,  had  the  Georgia  delegation  in  Congress,  and  the 
delegations  from  Mississippi  and  North  Carolina,  uttered  the 
same  stern  sentiments  in  the  same  stern  language  which  their 
State  legislatures  used,  and  which  the  great  body  of  the  people 
everywhere  felt,  this  monster  evil — this  escaped  demon  from  the 
perdition  of  other  regions — might  have  been  expelled  and  driven 
from  our  Eden !  I  say  it  might  have  been.  That  was  the  only 
sure  way  of  its  ever  being  done.  How  it  may  now  result,  time 
must  disclose.  I  had  but  little  hope,  when  this  measure  first 
passed,  that  we  should  ever  again  have  constitutional  liberty 
upon  this  continent.  This  you  well  know.  The  measure,  as 
passed,  was  somewhat  different  from  what  I  had  supposed  it  to 
be  upon  the  first  intelligence  of  it.  This  difference  afforded  me 
grounds  of  stronger  hopes  for  arresting  its  progress — for  pre- 


794:  LETTER   TO   HON.   H.   V.   JOHNSON. 

venting  the  consummation  of  its  mischiefs.  These  hopes,  in  turn, 
were  soon  greatly  weakened  by  seeing  the  opponents  of  the 
measure  yielding  their  position,  and  coming  to  terms  with  its  ad 
vocates.  From  that  day  to  this  I  have  had  but  little  hope.  I 
was  not  at  all  surprised,  therefore,  at  what  you  said  was  the 
prospect  before  us  on  this  question ;  still  while  I  live  and 
breathe  I  shall  do,  and  continue  to  do,  what  I  can  to  preserve 
the  liberties  of  the  people  from  overthrow  and  ruin.  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  motives  of  men ;  I  wish  this  distinctly 
understood,  not  only  for  once,  but  always.  I  arraign  no  one, 
and  pronounce  judgment  upon  no  one.  I  speak  of  things,  acts, 
and  measures,  and  their  inevitable  tendency.  My  deliberate 
opinion  is,  that  very  few  men  understand,  know,  or  appreciate 
the  nature  of  their  acts,  the  character  or  tendency  of  them. 
Men,  at  best,  are  but  grown  up  children.  In  legislatures,  or 
other  deliberate  bodies,  they  generally  act  in  masses ;  the  indi 
vidual  is  merged  in  the  multitude ;  he  exercises  very  little  of 
his  own  private  judgment.  This  is  the  general  rule  with  a  large 
majority  according  to  my  experience  and  observation.  To 
assign  bad  motives  to  such,  would  be  as  cruel,  as  unjust.  I 
have  no  disposition  to  do  it.  As  well  might  one  poor  wretch  be 
held  responsible  for  the  sins  of  society.  But  this  cannot  pre 
vent  or  modify  my  judgment  of  the  acts  of  the  aggregate  mass, 
the  great  sins  of  the  whole,  or  the  ruinous  tendency  of  them.  My 
experience  has  also  taught  me  that  men  hardly  ever  understand 
themselves.  The  wisest  uninspired  maxim  that  ever  was  uttered, 
I  think  is  this  :  "  Know  thyself."  Millions  have  repeated  it,  and 
other  millions  still  repeat  it,  without  the  slightest  comprehension 
of  its  import ;  hence  it  not  unfrequently  happens,  when  the 
nature  or  tendency  of  one's  acts  are  stated  to  him,  he  flares  up 
in  a  passion  and  in  a  rage,  because  he  thinks  his  motives  have 
been  impugned.  "  Is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this 
thing?"  exclaimed  Hazsel,  on  such  an  occasion.  Now  I  wish  to 
be  understood,  as  giving  it  as  my  deliberate  opinion,  that, 
Hazsel  was  perfectly  honest  and  sincere  in  the  passion  and  indig 
nation  he  expressed.  The  difficulty  or  error  with  him  was,  he  did 
not  know  himself.  Hazsel  was  a  representative  man.  As  I 
really  do  not  believe  he  was  actuated  by  bad  motives  at  the  time 
the  prophet  was  speaking  to  him,  so  I  am  willing  to  admit  that 
every  one  who  disagrees  with  me  upon  these  questions  may  be 
equally  free  from  bad  motives  ;  hence  I  assign  none  ;  charge  none. 
But  that  Hazael  did  as  he  did,  is  history  ;  that  thousands  of 
others  under  like  circumstances  have  done  as  he  did,  is  history, 
too ;  and  that  others  still  under  like  temptation  will  hereafter  do 
what  they  may  now  think  they  would  sooner  become  a  dog  than 
do,  will  not  only  probably,  but  almost  certainly  be  history  also. 
Power  is  corrupting.  It  fascinates,  intoxicates,  turns  the  brain, 
and  changes  the  nature  of  man ;  it  transforms  those  who  touch 
and  handle  it.  Such  is  its  unvarying  tendency.  This  is  an 


LETTER  TO   HON.  H.   V.   JOHNSON.  795 

eternal  truth,  and  no  wise  man  or  people  will  ever  disregard  it. 
People  are  never  in  so  much  danger  as  they  are  when  unlimited 
power  is  in  the  hands  of  those  in  whom  they  perfectly  confide. 
Personalities,  therefore,  with  me,  are  out  of  the  question  on  these 
great  subjects.  They  dwindle  into  insignificance;  and  I  assure 
you,  I  almost  weep  for  the  weakness,  frailty,  and  short-sighted 
ness  of  my  fellow-beings,  when  I  see  and  hear  such  motives  or 
feelings  attributed  to  me. 

But  I  must  again  stop.  This  letter  is  becoming  itself  long, 
almost  as  long  as  the  one  of  yesterday.  I  fear  I  shall  bore  you. 
I  do  not  wish  or  intend  to  do  so.  What  I  write  is,  of  course,  for 
yourself  only,  not  for  the  public.  I  do  not  put  any  injunction 
upon  you  in  reference  to  it,  however,  further  than  the  dictates  of 
your  own  judgment  and  discretion  ma}r  suggest — only  one  request 
I  will  make,  and  that  is,  that  you  will  preserve  what  I  have 
written  that  you  may  review  it  at  a  future  day.  Neither  my  sen 
timents  nor  my  acts,  on  the  matters  under  consideration,  are  the 
result  of  impulse  or  passion.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  they 
may  be  laid  away  and  turned  to  hereafter,  in  condemnation  or 
vindication  of  the  impropriety  or  wisdom  of  my  present  course, 
or,  at  least,  in  condemnation  or  vindication  of  my  memory :  for 
I  do  not  feel  as  if  my  days  on  this  earth  are  many.  The  time 
that  I  shall  be  further  perplexed  with  its  scenes,  strifes,  cares, 
and  anxieties,  is,  and  must  be  short,  at  best.  This  reflection 
brings  but  little  regret  to  me.  What  of  future  in  this  existence 
is  left  for  me  is  without  any  personal  aspiration  for  myself,  and 
with  very  little  hope  for  others,  so  far  as  concerns  the  present 
prospect  of  good  government  in  any  part  of  this  once  happy  and 
prosperous  country.  Life,  therefore,  has  but  few  attractions  for 
me.  While  I  have  been  here  I  have  with  free  will  and  of  my  own 
accord  labored,  I  think,  more  for  the  benefit  of  others  than  I  have 
for  myself,  which  is  more  than  many  mortals  I  ever  knew  could 
say  of  themselves.  It  ma}^  be  presumption  in  me  to  say  it  of 
myself,  but  I  nevertheless  do  say  it,  believing  it  to  be  true.  The 
consciousness  that  it  is  the  truth  affords  me  more  consolation  and 
gratification  than  all  the  honors  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  man  to 
bestow,  could  possibly  impart.  But  enough.  Adieu.  Let  me 
hear  from  you  when  you  have  leisure. 

Yours,  truly, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

HON.  HERSCHEL  V.  JOHNSON,  SANDY  GROVE,  Ga, 


796  LETTER   TO   HON.   ALEXANDER  J.   MARSHALL. 


LETTER  TO  HON.  ALEXANDER  J.  MARSHALL, 
RICHMOND,  YA. 

CRAWTORDVILLE,  GA.,  4th  Nov.,  1864. 
HON.  ALEXANDER  J.  MARSHALL,  RICHMOND,  VA. 

MY  DEAR  SIR: — Your  kind  letter  of  the  1st  instant  was  re 
ceived  yesterday.  The  other  package  referred  to  in  it  came  by 
the  same  mail.  I  have  read  both  with  serious  attention  and  pro 
found  interest.  The  defects  of  the  old  constitution,  and  the 
causes  of  disunion,  are  now  more  properly  fit  subjects  for  the 
speculative  philosophy  of  the  historian,  than  the  practical  objects 
of  inquiry  on  the  part  of  the  living  actors  who  have  to  deal  with 
facts  as  they  find  them,  and  make  the  best  of  them  as  they  arise. 
Wise  men  will,  however,  study  the  past  as  closely  as  they  watch 
the  present  and  guard  the  future.  With  this  view  your  reflec 
tions  are  not  only  entertaining  but  useful. 
*  #  #  *  *  * 

Secession,  with  us,  I  regarded  as  one  of  those  moral  or  political 
epidemics  to  which  States  and  communities  are  often  subject — 
like  other  epidemics  of  a  physical  character  to  which  humanity 
in  general  is  subject.  It  was  both  infectious  and  contagious, 
baffling  all  skill  and  defying  all  treatment.  Logically  speaking, 
there  was  but  one  real  and  substantial  cause  for  it.  That  was  the 
open,  palpable,  and  avowed  breach  of  the  compact  of  178*7,  by  a 
number  of  the  States  at  the  North  in  the  matter  of  rendition  of 
fugitives  from  service.  A  compact  broken  by  one  party  to  it  is 
broken  as  to  all.  This  is  a  universal  rule  of  law  amongst  all 
people,  civilized  or  savage.  The  old  Union  was,  therefore,  vir 
tually  broken  by  those  faithless  States  at  the  North.  Other  irri 
tating  causes  and  apprehended  dangers  contributed  to  the  con 
summation  of  the  result  at  the  South.  But  for  this  cause  by 
itself,  the  seceding  States  will  ever  be  justified  in  what  they  did 
by  an  impartial  and  enlightened  world.  The  wisdom  or  policy 
of  their  course  looking  to  their  own  interest  is  not  now  the  ques 
tion.  That  was  a  matter  for  them  to  determine  for  themselves 
in  view  of  all  the  consequences  attending  it.  What  they  did 
they  had  a  perfect  right,  moral  as  well  as  civil,  to  do.  Statec, 
however,  are  not  bound  even  by  honor  to  resort  to  the  "  ultima 
ratio  regum,"  or  that  which  may  involve  it,  for  every  cause  that 
would  fully  justify  them  in  doing  it.  The  redress  of  grievances 
of  this  sort  may  often  most  wisely  be  postponed  and  other 
methods  adopted  to  secure  their  removal.  Such  was  my  view  of 
our  case  as  you  may,  perhaps,  know,  in  the  fall  of  1860.  The  old 
Union  was  founded  upon  a  compact  between  sovereign  and  inde 
pendent  States.  This  compact  was  based  upon  the  idea  or 
assumption  that  it  was  for  the  best  interests  of  all  to  be  united 
upon  its  terms,  each  performing  and  discharging  faithfully  to  all 


LETTER   TO   HON.   ALEXANDER  J.   MARSHALL.  797 

the  rest  the  obligations  imposed  by  it.  That  assumption,  in  my 
judgment,  was  sound  and  correct.  I  was,  therefore,  not  with 
out  hopes  that  by  our  adopting  a  different  course  the  offending 
States  at  the  North  might  be  brought  to  a  reconsideration  of 
their  action.  Whether  that  view  was  correct  can  never  be  cer 
tainly  known.  A  different  line  of  policy  was  adopted.  By  that 
we  must  abide  and  bring  it  to  the  best  results  possible.  If  the 
assumption  upon  which  the  old  Union  was  originally  based  was 
correct,  of  course  there  could  not,  logically,  as  you  say,  be  any 
objection  to  its  ultimate  restoration,  if  all  parties  could  be 
brought  to  a  faithful  discharge  of  their  obligations  under  it. 
But,  my  dear  sir,  the  actions  of  men  in  the  aggregate,  of  commu 
nities,  states  or  nations,  are  seldom  governed  or  controlled  by 
logic.  If  they  had  been,  many  of  the  bloody  wars  which  fill  the 
history  of  our  race  never  would  have  occurred.  What  was  more 
illogical  than  the  influences  that  produced  the  crusades  for  the 
recovery  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  or  the  passions  that  incited 
deadly  strife  on  so  man}'  fields  of  carnage  upon  such  a  question  as 
the  real  presence  ?  Man  is  certainly  a  strange  creature,  and  both 
"  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made." 

Governments,  philosophically  considered,  are  but  the  outward 
coverings,  the  skins  or  shells  of  society,  or  political  organisms 
thrown  out  or  developed  by  a  natural  process  for  the  protection  of 
the  inner  life,  according  to  the  laws  of  its  being.  Hence  the  consti 
tutions  of  States  must  grow — the}7  can  never  be  made — they  must 
spring  from  natural  development.  What  is  to  be  the  future  of 
this  country  time  must  disclose  upon  this  principle.  For  dead 
governments  or  defunct  empires  there  is  no  resurrection.  After 
dissolution  their  elements  may  come  up  in  some  other  living 
form ;  not  upon  the  principle,  however,  of  reconstruction,  but 
upon  that  of  new  assimilation.  Without  busying  ourselves  much 
about  the  future,  or  making  efforts  to  shape  its  destinies,  the 
great  object  at  present  of  every  well-wisher  to  his  country  should 
be  to  direct  all  energies,  moral,  intellectual,  and  physical,  to  the 
vindication  and  establishment  of  the  principle  for  which  the  war 
now  upon  us  is  waged  on  our  part — that  is  the  ultimate  absolute 
sovereignty  of  the  several  States.  This  principle  once  recognized, 
permanently  fixed  and  adhered  to,  affords  the  surest  grounds  for 
the  hope  of  a  lasting  peace.  This,  and  this  only,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  will  prove  the  self-adjusting  principle,  the  perfect  regulator 
in  the  working  of  our  present  or  an}r  new  system  of  association 
of  States  that  may  arise.  With  this  principle  settled  the  future 
may  well  be  left  to  take  care  of  itself.  Mutual  safety,  security, 
protection,  and  interest  are  the  natural  affinities  that  draw  people 
or  States  into  alliances  and  confederations.  When  these  natural 
laws  are  left  perfectly  free  in  their  operation,  they  never  fail  to 
produce  their  legitimate  results — the  peace,  prosperity,  and  hap 
piness  of  the  people  in  whatever  associations  or  alliances  they 
may  arrange  themselves.  After  the  long  struggle  of  the  first  war 


798  LETTER   TO    HON.    ALEXANDER   J.    MARSHALL. 

of  independence,  both  parties  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
"  reciprocal  advantages  and  mutual  convenience  are  found  by 
experience  to  be  the  only  permanent  foundation  for  peace  and 
friendship  between  States." 

This  great  truth,  found  after  the  most  painful  analysis  of  years 
in  the  crucible  of  blood,  was  set  forth  in  the  preamble  of  the  pro 
visional  treaty  of  peace.  It  is  for  the  statesman  a  far  more  use 
ful  truth  than  was  ever  th,e  fancied  philosopher's  stone  for  the 
alchymist.  Had  it  been  recognized  and  acted  upon  this  war 
with  its  horrors,  its  cruelties,  sufferings,  and  desolation  never 
would  have  occurred.  To  illustrate : — If,  after  the  secession  of 
the  southern  States,  clearly  justified  by  the  breach  of  faith  on 
the  part  of  their  northern  confederates,  the  latter  States  had  dis 
covered,  as  they  seem  to  have  done,  that  the  Union  was  of  so 
much  benefit  to  them,  they  would  have  looked  to  its  restoration 
not  by  force  but  by  a  correction  of  their  own  error — by  renewed 
assurance  of  good  faith  in  the  future.  If,  after  that,  the  seceded 
States  had  found  it  to  their  benefit  and  advantage,  all  things 
duly  considered,  to  be  in  union  on  the  original  terms,  with  good 
faith  maintained  by  all,  they  would,  as  naturally  as  every  thing 
in  the  material  world  obeys  the  law  of  affinity,  have  adjusted 
themselves  accordingly.  If  they  had  not  so  found  it  to  be  their 
interest  to  renew  that  confederation,  they  would  have  remained 
separate  and  independent,  as  they  ought  to  have  done.  For 
safety,  security,  and  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature 
with  States  as  well  as  with  individuals.  In  the  latter  event, 
whatever  treaties  or  leagues  the  reciprocal  advantages  and 
mutual  convenience  of  both  or  each  and  all  required,  would  have 
been  entered  into  and  nothing  more.  There  would  have  been  no 
\var — no  force — but  each  and  all  would  have  moved  on  peacefully 
and  prosperously  in  their  own  rightful  spheres.  The  surest  way 
to  preserve  the  health  and  vigor  of  the  physical  body,  is  strictly 
to  conform  to  the  laws  of  its  existence.  The  same  is  true  of 
States  or  governments.  A  fundamental  principle  in  the  old 
Union  and  constitution,  one  of  the  laws  of  its  existence,  was  the 
reserved  sovereignty  of  the  several  States. 

The  right  to  resume  the  exercise  of  all  powers  delegated  when 
safety  required  it,  was  declared  by  Virginia  in  her  act  of  ratifica 
tion.  The  Union  was  one  eminently  of  consent.  An  attempt 
to  continue  it  by  force,  violates  the  law  of  its  existence.  As 
paradoxal  as  it  appears  to  many,  yet  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  reserved  sovereignty  of  the  State,  under  the 
old  constitution,  carrying  with  it  the  perfect  right  on  the  part  of 
any  State  to  secede  at  pleasure,  subject  to  no  control  but  moral 
obligation,  was  the  strongest  Union  doctine  consistent  with  the 
preservation  of  liberty  ever  proclaimed.  *  *  *  *  *  * 
Governments  to  be  strong  must  indeed  be  held  together  in  its 
parts  by  force.  The  universe  is  held  together  by  force,  b^y  the 
strongest  of  all  forces,  by  Omnipotence  itself;  yet  the  power  that 


LETTER   TO   HON.    ALEXANDER   J.    MARSHALL.  799 

controls  its  every  part,  preserving  forever  one  indissoluble  whole, 
is  nothing  but  the  simple  law  of  attraction.  This  is  the  force 
that  should  be  looked  to  in  binding  States  indissolubly.  This  is 
the  force  that  gives  governments  irresistable  strength  in  the 
union  of  all  their  parts.  * 

Under  its  operations,  (whether  our  present  organization  shall 
remain,  or  whether  new  ones  shall  take  their  places  in  whole  or  in 
part,  as  exigencies  may  arise  and  the  interests  and  the  affinities 
of  the  parties  may  determine,  in  the  process  of  future  assimila 
tion,)  I  can  but  hope  that  the  States,  both  South  and  North,  will 
enter  upon  a  new  career  of  development,  prosperity,  and  greatness, 
exciting  increased  wonder  in  the  old  world  by  grander  achieve 
ments  hereafter  to  be  made,  than  any  heretofore  attained  under  the 
true  workings  of  the  principles  of  our  American  institutions  of 
self-government.  But  I  cannot  continue  this  theme.  I  must  stop. 

You  ask  my  criticism  on  your  views,  as  to  certain  amend 
ments  of  the  old  constitution,  and  certain  defects  in  it,  which 
caused  the  present  alienation  and  disruption  of  the  States.  My 
opinion,  as  to  the  origin  and  cause  of  these  troubles,  is  that 
it  existed  more  with  the  people  than  with  the  government ;  or 
rather  it  may  more  properly  be  assigned  to  the  prejudices  and 
passions  of  the  people,  excited,  aroused,  and  inflamed  by  un 
principled,  ambitious,  and  selfish  demagogues,  North  and  South, 
than  to  any  radical  defect  in  the  constitution.  The  ship  was 
strong  enough,  large  enough,  safe  enough ;  the  real  difficulty  was 
with  the  crew,  or  those  of  the  crew  who  strove  amongst  themselves 
for  some  share  in  the  guidance  and  control  of  the  noble,  stately 
old  craft.  Of  course  she  was  not  perfect  in  all  her  parts,  as 
nothing  from  human  hands  ever  was  or  ever  will  be ;  still,  in  my 
judgment,  there  was  in  the  old  constitution  no  inherent  radical 
defect.  As  expounded  by  Jefferson  and  the  States  rights  men  in 
the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  resolutions  of  1198  and  1799,  it  was 
intended  to,  and  did,  in  deed  and  in  truth,  establish  the  "  best 
government  on  earth."  This  is  my  deliberate  judgment.  So  far 
as  our  troubles  in  their  origin  can  be  traced  to  the  constitution,  I 
think,  without  doubt,  they  are  attributed  to  the  consolidating 
tendency  with  which  it  was  administered.  It  was  the  centralizing 
idea  that  carried  protection  into  the  halls  of  Congress ;  then  in 
ternal  improvements ;  and  lastly,  satan-like,  the  slavery  question. 

This,  after  being  agitated  there  until  the  popular  mind  was 
greatly  excited,  was  carried  back  to  the  northern  States  by  their 
demagogues,  and  made  the  test  of  party  organizations.  In  this 
way  those  States  at  the  North,  before  alluded  to,  were  brought  to 
their  open  breach  of  faith  under  the  constitution,  and  to  their  vir 
tual  disruption  of  the  Union  under  the  compact.  But  for  the  cen 
tralizing,  consolidating  ideas  under  which  the  constitution  was 
administered,  (not  as  it  was  made  and  intended  to  operate  by  the 
States  which  formed  it,)  these  disturbing  questions  would  never 
have  been  entertained  by  Congress.  But  for  getting  seats  iu 


800  LETTER   TO   HON.   ALEXANDER   J.    MARSHALL. 

Congress  on  this  hobby,  there  would  have  been  no  such  parties 
formed  at  the  North ;  and  no  such  breach  of  faith  would  ever  have 
been  committed,  nor  would  any  of  the  other  evils  and  excitements 
growing  out  of  the  slavery  question,  Avhich  so  agitated  the  public 
mind  North  and  South,  and  which  did  so  much  in  the  hands  of 
demagogues  in  both  sections,  in  producing  the  actual  and  final 
rupture,  ever  have  occurred.  In  this  view  our  present  troubles 
may  be  mainly  attributed  to  this  tendency  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  to  centralism  and  consolidation.  That  clause 
in  the  constitution,  to  which  you  refer,  did  work  injuriously  to  the 
South :  but  that  (I  speak  of  the  whole  clause)  was  one  of  the 
compromises  of  the  constitution.  The  southern  States  yielded 
that  to  the  North  in  consideration  of  some  concession,  (which 
one  1  forget  now,)  made  by  them  upon  the  subject  of  slavery. 
That  whole  clause,  giving  Congress  power  to  regulate  commerce, 
was  the  source  of  more  injury  to  southern  interests  than  every 
thing  else  together.  This  clause  authorized  the  navigation  acts 
under  the  operation  of  which  southern  importations,  and  their 
direct  trade  from  abroad,  were  crippled,  and  soon  amounted  to 
little  or  nothing.  The  financial  system  adopted,  centralizing  the 
capital  of  the  funded  public  debt  at  the  North,  in  combination 
with  the  navigation  laws,  completely  revolutionized  commerce,  or 
at  least  changed  its  channels  and  marts  in  the  States.  Charleston, 
before  the  constitution  was  formed,  was  not  much,  if  in  any  degree, 
inferior  in  trade  and  commerce  to  Boston  or  New  York.  I  do 
not  recollect  the  statistics  exactty,  but  all  southern  ports  lost 
largely  in  their  trade  by  the  operation  of  these  navigation  acts. 
This  principle  was  not  well  understood  by  our  people ;  much 
that  was  attributed  to  the  tariff,  and  other  imaginary  causes,  was 
due  to  this.  The  monied  capital  was  at  the  North ;  the  ship 
ping  was  owned  at  the  North.  The  whole  coast  trade  was 
secured  to  American  bottoms.  No  foreign  vessel  was  allowed 
to  break,  bulk,  or  unload  parts  of  her  cargo  in  different  ports. 
Hence  nearly  all  importations  in  foreign  bottoms  were  thrown 
into  New  York,  Boston,  or  Philadelphia.  These  became  the  great 
marts.  A  ship  from  Liverpool  coming  for  cotton,  rice,  or  tobacco, 
would  first  leave  her  cargo  of  imports  at  New  York,  thence  sail 
in  ballast  to  Savannah,  Charleston,  or  Norfolk  for  her  return 
cargo.  Northern  shipping,  then,  under  the  monopoly  secured  by 
the  navigation  laws,  distributed  the  assorted  cargoes  accumulated 
in  the  great  marts  as  the  demands  in  other  ports  required.  South 
ern  cities  thus  became  nothing  but  tributaries  and  dependencies 
upon  those  of  the  North.  The  latter  grew  and  prospered,  while 
the  former  remained  stationary  or  declined.  This  is  but  a  glance 
at  the  system.  All  growing  out  of  that  clause  of  the  constitution 
agreed  to  on  compromise  as  stated. 

But  these  navigation  laws  might  have  been  revised  and  amend 
ed,  so  as  to  break  down  this  monopoly  of  New  England  ship 
ping,  if  the  southern  members  of  Congress  had  united  with  those 


LETTER  TO   HOX.    ALEXANDER   J.   MARSHALL.  801 

of  the  west  upon  the  question,  and  exerted  half  the  efforts  they 
wasted  upon  many  very  trifling  subjects.  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say  what  would  be  the  practical  workings  of  the  system,  with  the 
omission  in  this  clause  of  the  words  "  between  the  States."  I 
should  have  to  think  about  it  and  study  it  more  than  I  now  have 
time  to  do,  before  arriving  at  any  opinion  satisfactory  even  to 
myself  upon  it.  I  am  so  much  of  a  States  rights  man,  however, 
by  nature;  my  first  impulse  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that 
it  would  have  been  better  to  leave  that  matter  to  the  States.  Had 
the  States  retained  that  power  under  the  old  S37stem,  we  might 
perhaps  under  it  have  been  enabled  to  bring  the  covenant  breakers 
to  a  reconsideration  of  their  acts  of  bad  faith,  in  the  matter  be 
fore  alluded  to,  without  resorting  to  secession.  This  power,  re 
tained  by  States  thus  confederated,  might  be  an  important  and 
useful  check  in  bringing  delinquent  members  up  to  the  full  dis 
charge  of  their  duties  and  obligations  under  the  compact.  Still 
I  could  not  venture  a  positive  opinion  one  way  or  the  other,  with 
out  more  reflection.  I  should,  however,  never  favor  its  exercise, 
simply  with  a  view  to  the  protection  of  any  of  the  mechanic  arts 
or  industrial  pursuits.  That  whole  theory,  in  my  judgment,  is 
radically  wrong. 

I  agree  with  you  entirely  about  parties  and  party  organizations. 
They  are  the  curse  and  bane  of  republics.  They  can  exist  no 
where  else.  They  are  generally  considered,  to  some  extent,  the 
life  of  free  institutions  ;  at  least  they  seern  to  be  so  to  the  casual 
observer  ;  and  yet  they  have  never  failed  to  be  the  cause  of  their 
ultimate  overthrow.  This  is  somewhat  paradoxical.  Perhaps  they 
are  not  what  they  even  seem  to  some  extent  to  be — the  life  of  free 
institutions.  This,  I  think,  is  the  truth  ;  and  a  little  analysis  will 
show  it.  Free  thought,  free  speech,  and  free  discussion,  are  the 
life  as  well  as  soul  of  free  institutions.  Parties  generally  spring 
from  these,  and  necessarily,  under  our  present  modes  of  deciding 
questions.  They  never  arise,  however,  except  when  questions  are  to 
be  decided  by  a  count  of  votes.  The  freest  and  most  enlightened  dis 
cussion  may  exist,  and  progress  without  any  party  organization, 
until  arrangements  are  made  for  marshalling  the  forces  for  a  deci 
sion  of  the  question.  How  then  can  the  bad  effects  of  this  marshal 
ling  of  the  forces  (which  soon  becomes  so  corrupt)  be  best  guarded 
against,  or  prevented  consistently  with  the  progress  of  thought, 
interests,  and  welfare  of  societ}^  I  have  thought  of  it  a  good  deal 
recently.  To  my  mind  the  remedy  is  now  clear.  It  lies  in  a  modifi 
cation  of  the  bare  plurality  principle,  in  the  decision  of  all  questions 
affecting  the  general  interest  of  society.  A  larger  portion  than  a 
bare  half  of  these,  who  are  to  decide  all  such  questions,  should  be 
required  to  be  consentient  to  any  decision  before  it  is  binding  upon 
the  whole.  The  jury  trial,  which  has  worked  so  well  for  centuries  in 
England,  and  with  us,  requires  unanimity  to  give  validity  to  the 
verdict.  This  principle  might,  with  great  profit,  be  carried  also  to  the 
halls  o :'  legislation  and  the  forums  of  election.  I  will  not  undertake 
51 


802     LETTER  TO  HON.  ALEXANDER  J.  MARSHALL. 

to  say  to  what  extent,  above  plurality,  and  short  of  unanimity,  it 
could  be  properly  carried  in  either.  But  in  a  resort  to  this  prin 
ciple,  lies  the  surest  guarantees  against  corrupt  party  organiza 
tions  in  a  republic.  One  of  the  most  erroneous  ideas  generally 
entertained  is,  that  a  majority  barely  should  govern,  and  that 
any  measure  is  right  which  secures  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number.  This  dogma,  or  these  dogmas,  are  both  funda 
mentally  wrong.  That  society,  or  the  body  politic,  should  gov 
ern  itself,  is  true.  This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  a  bare 
plurality  should  govern  all  the  rest.  If  this  were  so,  no  consti 
tutional  barriers  or  checks  would  ever  be  proper.  The  objects  to 
be  aimed  at  in  providing  a  proper  system  for  society  to  govern 
itself  justly,  so  as  that  the  rights  of  each  shall  be  secured  and  the 
common  interests  of  all  promoted,  should  be  to  require,  as  far  as 
practicable,  the  consentient  will  of  the  whole,  expressed  through 
its  proper  channels,  to  give  validity  and  sanction  to  any  meas 
ure  affecting  the  general  interests  or  welfare  of  all. 

No  doctrine  or  principle  is  more  unjust  or  pernicious  than 
that  "  of  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number."  The  true 
rule  is  the  greatest  good  to  all,  to  each  and  every  one,  without 
injury  to  any.  ]STo  one  hundred  men  on  earth  have  the  moral 
right  to  govern  any  other  ninety-nine  men  or,  less  number,  and 
to  make  the  interests  of  the  ninety-nine,  or  less  number,  subser 
vient  to  the  interests  of  the  hundred,  because  thereby  the  greatest 
good  to  the  greatest  number  will  be  promoted.  Some  persons 
on  this  view  (not  understanding  it  properly)  attack  our  institu 
tions  of  the  subordination  of  the  inferior  race  amongst  us,  while 
others  defend  that  system  upon  the  principle  of  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number,  which  I  am  combatting.  Both  these 
classes  of  persons  are  wrong.  If  slavery  with  us  rested  upon  this 
principle,  which  these  advocates  advance,  it  would  be  wrong,  and 
ought  to  be  abolished,  while  the  position  assumed  by  me  above  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  that  institution.  The  solution  is  this : 
The  negroes  amongst  us,  it  is  true,  form  component  elements  in 
society.  But  subordination  from  natural  inferiority  is  their  normal 
condition.  This  does  not  imply,  however,  that  they  have  no  rights 
or  interests  that  society  in  its  government  of  all  its  members  should 
look  after.  Our  institutions  logically  rest  upon  the  assumption, 
which  I  think  demonstrably  correct,  that  their  present  relation  to 
the  white  race,  when  properly  regulated  by  law,  is  best  for  both  par 
ties.  One  thing  is  certain,  if  it  is  not  best  for  both,  or  cannot  be 
made  best  for  both  in  view  of  the  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual 
development  and  advancement  of  both,  by  proper  regulations  to  be 
adopted  by  society  in  its  government  of  the  whole,  then  the  insti 
tution  is  wrong  in  principle,  and  ought  to  be  abandoned.  The 
fact  is,  that  the  relation  properly  regulated  by  law  is  the  best  for 
both  in  every  view  of  the  question  in  my  judgment. 

T  ;is  digression  you  will  pardon.  I  was  drawn  into  it  only 
for  llustration.  Society  in  its  government  should  look  not 


•  LETTER   TO   HON.   ALEXANDER   J.    MARSHALL.  803 

to  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,  but  to  the  great 
est  attainable  good  to  all  without  injury  or  detriment  to  any. 
This  should  be  the  universal  rule.  The  best  way  to  secure  its 
practical  application  in  republics  or  popular  governments,  in  my 
opinion,  is  to  make  approaches  toward  the  unanimity  principle, 
at  least  in  legislation.  How  nearly  perfect  unanimity  should  be 
required,  or  what  proportion  of  the  votes  in  legislative  bodies 
should  be  required  to  pass  any  law,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say. 
While  great  mischiefs  grow  out  of  the  bare  majority  principle  as 
our  own,  as  well  as  the  history  of  many  other  countries  shows,  very 
little  danger  need  be  apprehended  from  such  modification  of  it 
as  I  speak  of — not  even  if  it  should  be  extended  to  a  requisition 
of  perfect  unanimity.  All  proper  laws  are  steps  in  progress  by 
society.  Society  can  much  more  safely  stand  still  awhile  as  a 
general  rule,  than  to  venture  a  step  without  a  full  and  clear  con 
viction  that  it  is  in  the  right  direction.  No  truth  is  better 
established  than  that  "the  world  is  governed  too  much."  No 
new  law  ought  ever  to  be  passed  until  the  wants  and  needs 
of  society  as  a  whole  in  its  progress  requires  it.  All  checks 
upon  legislation  looking  to  this  end  are  not  only  proper,  but 
eminently  wise.  With  free  speech,  free  discussion,  and  a  free 
press,  the  power  of  truth,  amongst  an  enlightened  people,  would 
not  be  long  in  bringing  the  general  opinion  of  the  whole  body  of 
legislators  to  a  proper  and  just  appreciation  of  any  new  measure 
or  proposed  advanced  step  in  progress — quite  soon  enough  for 
that  prudent,  safe,  and  stately  step,  that  all  governments  should 
be  careful  to  make.  Many,  I  am  fully  aware,  would  be  disposed 
to  consider  these  views  utterly  impracticable,  if  not  chimerical ; 
such  persons  are  but  superficial  observers.  They  do  not  under 
stand  the  true  philosophy  of  government.  It  is  a  lamentable 
fact,  that  there  has  been  less  improvement  in  the  progress  of 
civilization  from  the  lights  of  experience  in  the  science  of  gov 
ernment,  than  in  any  other  branch  of  human  knowledge.  I  have 
not  time  now  to  enlarge  upon  those  views,  or  to  fortify  the  posi 
tions  taken.  I  will  simply  add,  that  those  who  doubt  the  efficient 
practical  working  of  such  new  checks  upon  legislation  in  our  sys 
tems,  as  I  suggest,  would  do  well  to  study  the  annals  of  Poland 
and  the  kingdom  of  Arragon.  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  his  matchless 
treatise  upon  government,  has  clearly  shown  the  admirable  work 
ings  of  the  unanimity  principle,  even  in  the  election  of  their  chief 
magistrate  in  the  former  of  these  countries  for  centuries.  While 
in  Arragon,  to  which  he  does  not  refer,  history  teaches  that  for 
several  hundred  years  the  Cortes,  the  legislative  body  of  the  king 
dom,  could  pass  no  law  or  elect  a  ruler  without  the  vote  of  every 
member  in  each  house.  The  system  worked  well  with  them. 
Under  that  system,  Ferdinand  with  Isabella  reigned.  Under 
that  system,  Spain  reached  a  higher  degree  of  civilization  than 
any  of  her  neighboring  States.  She  took  the  lead  of  all  Europe — 
and  under  her  liberal  and  enlightened  auspices  the  new  western 


804          ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE/ 

world  was  discovered.  Let  no  one  hastily  or  rashly  condemn 
even  the  unanimity  principle  in  view  of  this  actual  practical  ex 
periment  as  to  its  workings,  and  working  well  for  ages.  Indeed, 
the  liberties  of  Arragon  wrere  never  lost  until  the  ambitious 
Charles  V.  by  corrupt  means  procured  the  abandonment  of  this 
principle  in  the  Cortes.  Under  it,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
party  or  party  organization.  All  must  agree  ;  all  must  be  of  the 
same  way  of  thinking;  all  must  be  of  the  same  party  before  any 
thing  can  be  done.  Without  saying  more  on  the  subject,  I  submit 
these  thoughts  to  you  as  the  key  to  the  surest  prevention  of  par 
ties  in  Republics.  *  *  *  *  This  letter  is  already  much  too 
long.  I  have  been  interrupted  several  times  since  its  commence 
ment.  It  is  not,  therefore,  so  connected  as  it  otherwise  might 
have  been.  I  trust,  however,  that  as  long  and  as  disjointed  as 
it  is,  you  will  not  feel  bored  by  its  perusal;  if,  indeed,  you  shall 
be  able  to  decipher  my  hieroglyphics.  I  hope  to  be  in  Richmond 
before  long,  when  I  should  like  to  talk  over  these  and  other 
matters.  My  health  is  quite  feeble,  though  it  is  much  better 
than  it  was  last  fall  and  winter. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


ADDRESS    BEFORE    THE    GENERAL    ASSEMBLY   OF 
THE  STATE  OF  GEORGIA,  FEBRUARY  22,  1866. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  : 

I  appear  before  you  in  answer  to  your  call.  This  call,  coming 
in  the  imposing  form  it  does,  and  under  the  circumstances  it  does, 
requires  a  response  from  me.  You  have  assigned  to  me  a  very 
high,  a  very  honorable  and  responsible  position.  This  position 
you  know  I  did  not  seek.  Most  willingly  would  I  have  avoided 
it ;  and  nothing  but  an  extraordinary  sense  of  duty  could  have 
induced  me  to  yield  my  own  disinclinations  and  aversions  to  your 
wishes  and  judgment  in  the  matter.  For  this  unusual  manifesta 
tion  of  esteem  and  confidence,  I  return  you  my  prt)foundest 
acknowledgments  of  gratitude.  Of  one  thing  only  can  I  give  you 
any  assurance,  and  that  is,  if  I  shall  be  permitted  to  discharge  the 
trusts  thereby  imposed,  they  will  be  discharged  with  a  singleness 
of  purpose  to  the  public  good. 

The  great  object  with  me  now,  is  to  see  a  restoration,  if  possible, 
of  peace,  prosperity,  and  constitutional  liberty  in  this  once  happ}^ 
but  now  disturbed,  agitated,  and  distracted  country.  To  this  end, 
all  my  energies  and  efforts,  to  the  extent  of  their  powrers,  will  be 
devoted. 

Yon  a^k  my  views  on  the  existing  state  of  affairs ;  our  duties 


ADDRESS   BEFORE    THE    GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE.  805 

at  the  present,  and  the  prospects  of  the  future  ?  This  is  a  task 
from  which,  under  other  circumstances,  I  might  very  well  shrink. 
He  who  ventures  to  speak,  and  to  give  counsel  and  advice  in  times 
of  peril,  or  disaster,  assumes  no  enviable  position.  Far  be  that 
rashness  from  me  which  sometimes  prompts  the  forward  to  rush 
in  where  angels  might  fear  to  tread.  In  responding,  therefore, 
briefly  to  your  inquiries,  I  feel,  I  trust,  the  full  weight  and  mag 
nitude  of  the  subject.  It  involves  the  welfare  of  millions  now  liv 
ing,  and  that  of  many  more  millions  who  are  to  come  after  us.  I 
am  also  fully  impressed  with  the  consciousness  of  the  inconceiva 
bly  small  effect  of  what  I  shall  say  upon  the  momentous  results 
involved  in  the  subject  itself. 

It  is  with  these  feelings  I  offer  my  mite  of  counsel  at  your  re 
quest.  And  in  the  outset  of  the  undertaking,  limited  as  it  is  in 
tended  to  be  to  a  few  general  ideas  only,  well  may  I  imitate  an 
illustrious  example  in  invoking  aid  from  on  high;  ''that  I  may 
say  nothing  on  this  occasion  which  may  compromit  the  rights, 
the  honor,  the  dignity,  or  best  interests  of  my  country."  I  mean 
specially  the  rights,  h'onor,  dignity,  and  best  interests  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Georgia.  With  their  sufferings,  their  losses,  their  misfor 
tunes,  their  bereavements,  and  their  present  utter  prostration,  my 
heart  is  in  deepest  sympathy. 

We  have  reached  that  point  in  our  affairs  at  which  the  great 
question  before  us  is — "To  be  or  not  to  be?" — and  if  to  be — 
How  ?  Hope,  ever  springing  in  the  human  breast,  prompts,  even 
under  the  greatest  calamities  and  adversities,  never  to  despair. 
Adversit}r  is  a  severe  school,  a  terrible  crucible ;  both  for  individ 
uals  and  communities.  We  are  now  in  this  school,  this  crucible, 
and  should  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  never  negative  in  its  action.  It 
is  always  positive.  It  is  ever  decided  in  its  effects,  one  way  or 
the  other.  It  either  makes  better  or  worse.  It  either  brings  out 
unknown  vices,  or  arouses  dormant  virtues.  In  morals  ;  its  ten 
dency  is  to  make  saints  or  reprobates — in  politics  to  make  heroes 
or  desperadoes.  The  first  indication  of  its  working  for  good,  to 
which  hope  looks  anxiously,  is  the  manifestation  of  a  full  con 
sciousness  of  its  nature  and  extent ;  and  the  most  promising  grounds 
of  hope  for  possible  good  from  our  present  troubles,  or  of  things 
with  us  getting  better  instead  of  worse,  is  the  evident  general  re 
alization,  on  the  part  of  our  people,  of  their  present  situation : 
of  the  evils  now  upon  them,  and  of  the  greater  ones  still  impend 
ing.  These  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  exaggerate  if  I  could  ;  that 
would  be  useless  ;  nor  to  lessen  or  extenuate  ;  that  would  be  worse 
than  useless.  All  fully  understand  and  realize  them.  They  feel 
them.  It  is  well  they  do. 

Can  these  evils  upon  us — the  absence  of  law ;  the  want  of  pro 
tection  and  security  of  person  and  property,  without  which  civil 
ization  cannot  advance — be  removed  ?  or  can  those  greater  ones 
which  threaten  our  very  political  existence,  be  averted  ?  These 
are  the  questions. 


806  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

It  is  true  we  have  not  the  control  of  all  the  remedies,  even  if 
these  questions  could  be  satisfactorily  answered.  Our  fortunes 
and  destiny  are  not  entirely  in  our  own  hands.  Yet  there  are 
some  things  that  we  may,  and  can,  and  ought,  in  my  judgment,  to 
do,  from  which  no  harm  can  come,  and  from  which  some  good 
may  follow,  in  bettering  our  present  condition.  States  and  com 
munities,  as  well  as  individuals,  when  they  have  done  the  best 
they  can  in  view  of  surrounding  circumstances,  with  all  the  lights 
they  have  before  them — let  results  be  what  they  may — can  at 
least  enjoy  the  consolation — no  small  recompense  that — of  having 
performed  their  duty,  and  of  having  a  conscience  void  of  offence 
before  God  and  man.  This,  if  no  more  valuable  result,  will,  I 
trust,  attend  the  doing  of  what  I  propose. 

The  first  great  duty,  then,  I  would  enjoin  at  this  time,  is  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  simple,  though  difficult  and  trying,  but  nevertheless 
indispensable  quality  of  patience.  Patience  requires  of  those 
afflicted  to  bear  and  to  suffer  with  fortitude  whatever  ills  may  be 
fall  them.  This  is  often,  and  especially  is  it  the  case  with  us  now, 
essential  for  their  ultimate  removal  by  any  instrumentalities  what 
ever.  We  are  in  the  condition  of  a  man  with  a  dislocated  limb, 
or  a  broken  leg,  and  a  very  bad  compound  fracture  at  that.  How 
it  became  broken  should  not  be  with  him  a  question  of  so  much 
importance,  as  how  it  can  be  restored  to  health,  vigor,  and  strength. 
This  requires  of  him,  as  the  highest  duty  to  himself,  to  wait  qui 
etly  and  patiently  in  splints  and  bandages,  until  nature  resumes 
her  active  powers — until  the  vital  functions  perform  their  office. 
The  knitting  of  the  bones  and  the  granulation  of  the  flesh  require 
time ;  perfect  quiet  and  repose,  even  under  the  severest  pain,  is 
necessary.  It  will  not  do  to  make  too  great  haste  to  get  well ; 
an  attempt  to  walk  too  soon  will  only  make  the  matter  worse. 
We  must  or  ought  now,  therefore,  in  a  similar  manner  to  disci 
pline  ourselves  to  the  same  or  like  degree  of  patience.  I  know 
the  anxiety  and  restlessness  of  the  popular  mind  to  be  fully  on 
our  feet  again — to  walk  abroad  as  we  once  did— -to  enjoy  once 
more  the  free  outdoor  air  of  heaven,  with  the  perfect  use  of  all 
our  limbs.  I  know  how  trying  it  is  to  be  denied  representation 
in  Congress,  while  we  are  paying  our  proportion  of  the  taxes — 
how  anno37ing  it  is  to  be  even  partially  under  military  rule — and 
how  injurious  it  is  to  the  general  interest  and  business  of  the 
country  to  be  without  post-offices  and  mail  communications ;  to 
say  nothing  of  divers  other  matters  on  the  long  list  of  our  present 
inconveniences  and  privations.  All  these,  however,  we  must  pa 
tiently  bear  and  endure  for  a  season.  With  quiet  and  repose  we 
may  get  well — may  get  once  more  on  our  feet  again.  One  thing- 
is  certain,  that  bad  humor,  ill-temper,  exhibited  either  in  restless 
ness  or  grumbling,  will  not  hasten  it. 

Next  to  this,  another  great  duty  we  owe  to  ourselves  is  the  ex 
ercise  of  a  liberal  spirit  of  forbearance  amongst  ourselves. 

The  firiV:  step  toward  local  or  general  harmony,  is  the  banish- 


ADDRESS  BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE.  807 

ment  from  our  breasts  of  every  feeling  and  sentiment  calculated 
to  stir  the  discords  of  the  past.  Nothing  could  be  more  injurious 
or  mischievous  to  the  future  of  this  country,  than  the  agitation,  at 
present,  of  questions  that  divided  the  people  anterior  to,  or  dur 
ing  the  existence  of  the  late  war.  On  no  occasion,  and  especially 
in  the  bestowment  of  office,  ought  such  differences  of  opinion  in 
the  past  ever  to  be  mentioned,  either  for  or  against  any  one,  oth 
erwise  equally  entitled  to  confidence.  These  ideas  or  sentiments 
of  other  times  and  circumstances  are  not  the  germs  from  which 
hopeful  organizations  can  now  arise.  Let  all  differences  of  opinion, 
touching  errors,  or  supposed  errors,  of  the  head  or  heart,  on  the 
part  of  any,  in  the  past,  growing  out  of  these  matters,  be  at  once, 
in  the  deep  ocean  of  oblivion  forever  buried.  Let  there  be  no 
criminations  or  recriminations  on  account  of  acts  of  other  days. 
No  canvassing  of  past  conduct  or  motives.  Great  disasters  are 
upon  us  and  upon  the  whole  country,  and  without  inquiring  how 
these  originated,  or  at  whose  door  the  fault  should  be  laid,  let  us 
now  as  common  sharers  of  common  misfortunes,  on  all  occasions, 
consult  only  as  to  the  best  means,  under  the  circumstances  as  we 
find  them,  to  secure  the  best  ends  toward  future  amelioration. 
Good  government  is  what  we  want.  This  should  be  the  leading- 
desire  and  the  controlling  object  with  all ;  and  I  need  not  assure 
you,  if  this  can  be  obtained,  that  our  desolated  fields,  our  towns 
and  villages,  and  cities  now  in  ruins,  will  soon — like  the  Phoenix — 
rise  again  from  their  ashes  ;  and  all  our  waste  places  will  again^ 
at  no  distant  day,  blossom  as  the  rose. 

This  view  should  also  be  borne  in  mind,  that  whatever  differ 
ences  of  opinion  existed  before  the  late  fury  of  the  war,  they 
sprung  mainly  from  differences  as  to  the  best  means  to  be  used, 
and  the  best  line  of  policy  to  be  pursued,  to  secure  the  great  con 
trolling  object  of  all — which  was  GOOD  GOVERNMENT.  Whatever 
may  be  said  of  the  loyalty  or  disloyalty  of  any,  in  the  late  most 
lamentable  conflict  of  arms,  I  think  I  may  venture  safely  to  say, 
that  there  was,  on  the  part  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of 
Georgia,  and  of  the  entire  South,  no  disloyalty  to  the  principles 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  To  that  system  of  rep 
resentative  government ;  of  delegated  and  limited  powers ;  that 
establishment  in  a  new  phase,  on  this  continent,  of  all  the  essen 
tials  of  England's  Magna  Charta,  for  the  protection  and  security 
of  life,  liberty  and  property ;  with  the  additional  recognition  of 
the  principle  as  a  fundamental  truth,  that  all  political  power  re 
sides  in  the  people.  With  us  it  was  simply  a  question  as  to  where 
our  allegiance  was  due  in  the  maintenance  of  these  principles — 
which  authority  was  paramount  in  the  last  resort — State  or  fed 
eral.  As  for  myself,  I  can  affirm  that,  no  sentiment  of  disloyalty 
to  these  great  principles  of  self-government,  recognized  and  em 
bodied  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  ever  beat  or 
throbbed  in  breast  or  heart  of  mine.  To  their  maintenance  my 
whole  soul  was  ever  enlisted,  and  to  this  end  my  whole  life  has 


808          ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

heretefore  been  devoted,  and  will  continue  to  be  the  rest  of  my 
days — God  willing.  In  devotion  to  these  principles,  I  yield  to 
no  man  living.  This  much  I  can  say  for  myself;  may  I  not  say 
the  same  for  you  and  for  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  Georgia, 
and  for  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  the  entire  South  ?  What 
ever  differences  existed  amongst  us,  arose  from  differences  as  to 
the  best  and  surest  means  of  securing  these  great  ends,  which  was 
the  object  of  all.  It  was  with  this  view  and  this  purpose  secession 
was  tried.  That  has  failed.  Instead  of  bettering  our  condition, 
instead  of  establishing  our  liberties  upon  a  surer  foundation,  we 
have,  in  the  war  that  ensued,  come  well  nigh  losing  the  whole  of 
the  rich  inheritance  with  which  we  set  out. 

This  is  one  of  the  sad  realizations  of  the  present.  In  this,  too, 
we  are  but  illustrating  the  teachings  of  history.  Wars,  and  civil 
wars  especially,  always  menace  liberty ;  they  seldom  advance  it ; 
while  they  usually  end  in  its  entire  overthrow  and  destruction. 
Ours  stopped  just  short  of  such  a  catastrophe.  Our  only  alter 
native  now  is,  either  to  give  up  all  hope  of  constitutional  liberty, 
or  to  retrace  our  steps,  and  to  look  for  its  vindication  and  main 
tenance  in  the  forums  of  reason  and  justice,  instead  of  on  the  arena 
of  arms — in  the  courts  and  halls  of  legislation,  instead  of  on  the 
fields  of  battle. 

I  am  frank  and  candid  in  telling  you  right  here,  that  our  surest 
hopes,  in  my  judgment,  of  these  ends,  are  in  the  restoration  policy 
<pf  the  President  of  the  United  States.  I  have  little  hope  for 
liberty — little  hope  for  the  success  of  the  great  American  experi 
ment  of  self-government — but  in  the  success  of  the  present  efforts 
for  the  restoration  of  the  States  to  their  former  practical  relations 
in  a  common  government,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

We  are  not  without  an  encouraging  example  on  this  line  in  the 
history  of  the  mother  country — in  the  history  of  our  ancestors — 
from  whom  we  derived,  in  great  measure,  the  principles  to  which 
we  are  so  much  devoted.  The  truest  friends  of  liberty  in  Eng 
land  once,  in  1642,  abandoned  the  forum  of  reason,  and  appealed, 
as  we  did,  to  the  sword,  as  the  surest  means,  in  their  judgment, 
of  advancing  their  cause.  This  was  after  they  had  made  great 
progress,  under  the  lead  of  Coke,  Hampden,  Falkland  and  others, 
in  the  advancement  of  liberal  principles.  Many  usurpations  had 
been  checked;  many  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  had  been 
curtailed ;  the  petition  of  right  had  been  sanctioned  ;  ship-money 
had  been  abandoned;  courts-martial  had  been  done  away  with; 
habeas  corpus  had  been  re-established ;  high  courts  of  commission 
and  star-chamber  had  been  abolished ;  many  other  great  abuses 
of  power  had  been  corrected,  and  other  reforms  established.  But 
not  satisfied  with  these,  and  not  satisfied  with  the  peaceful  work 
ing  of  reason,  to  go  on  in  its  natural  sphere,  the  denial  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  crown  was  pressed  by  the  too  ardent  reformers 
upon  Charles  the  First.  All  else  he  had  yielded — this  he  would 


ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE.  809 

not.  The  sword  was  appealed  to,  to  settle  the  question ;  a  civil 
war  was  the  result ;  great  valor  and  courage  were  displayed  on 
both  sides  ;  men  of  eminent  virtue  and  patriotism  fell  in  the  san 
guinary  and  fratricidal  conflict ;  the  king  was  deposed  and  exe 
cuted  ;  a  commonwealth  proclaimed.  But  the  end  was  the  reduc 
tion  of  the  people  of  England  to  a  worse  state  of  oppression  than 
they  had  been  in  for  centuries.  They  retraced  their  steps.  After 
neaii3r  twenty  years  of  exhaustion  and  blood,  and  the  loss  of  the 
greater  portion  of  the  liberties  enjoyed  by  them  before,  they,  by 
almost  unanimous  consent,  called  for  restoration.  The  restora 
tion  came.  Charles  the  Second  ascended  the  throne,  as  unlimited 
a  monarch  as  ever  ruled  the  empire.  Not  a  pledge  was  asked  or 
a  guarantee  given,  touching  the  concessions  of  the  royal  preroga 
tive,  that  had  been  exacted  and  obtained  from  his  father. 

The  true  friends  of  liberty,  of  reform  and  of  progress  in  gov 
ernment,  had  become  convinced  that  these  were  the  offspring  of 
peace  and  of  enlightened  reason,  and  not  of  passion  nor  of  arms. 
The  House  of  Commons  and  the  House  of  Lords  were  henceforth 
the  theatres  of  their  operations,  and  not  the  fields  of  Newberry  or 
Marston-Moor.  The  result  was,  that  in  less  than  thirty  years,  all 
their  ancient  rights  and  privileges,  which  had  been  lost  in  the  civil 
war,  with  new  securities,  were  re-established  in  the  ever-memora 
ble  settlement  of  1688 ;  which,  for  all  practical  purposes,  may  be 
looked  upon  as  a  bloodless  revolution.  Since  that  time,  England 
has  made  still  further  and  more  signal  strides  in  reform  and  pro 
gress.  But  not  one  of  these  has  been  effected  by  resort  to  arms. 
Catholic  emancipation  was  carried  in  parliament,  after  years  of 
argument,  against  the  most  persistent  opposition.  Reason  and 
justice  ultimately  prevailed.  So  with  the  removal  of  the  disability 
of  the  Jews — so  with  the  overthrow  of  the  rotten-borough  sys 
tem — so  with  the  extension  of  franchise — so  with  the  modification 
of  the  corn-laws,  and  restrictions  on  commerce,  opening  the  way 
to  the  establishment  of  the  principles  of  free-trade — and  so  with 
all  the  other  great  reforms  by  parliament,  which  have  so  distin 
guished  English  history  for  the  last  half  century. 

May  wre  not  indulge  hope,  even  in  the  alternative  before  us 
now,  from  this  great  example  of  restoration,  if  we  but  do  as  the 
friends  of  liberty  there  did  ?  This  is  my  hope,  my  only  hope. 
It  is  founded  on  the  virtue,  intelligence  and  patriotism  of  the 
American  people.  I  have  not  lost  my  faith  in  the  people,  or  in 
their  capacity  for  self-government.  But  for  these  great  essential 
qualities  of  human  nature,  to  be  brought  into  active  and  efficient 
exercise,  for  the  fulfilment  of  patriotic  hopes,  it  is  essential  that 
the  passions  of  the  day  should  subside ;  that  the  causes  of  these 
passions  should  not  now  be  discussed ;  that  the  embers  of  the 
late  strife  shall  not  be  stirred. 

Man  by  nature  is  ever  prone  to  scan  closely  the  errors  and 
defects  of  his  fellow  man — ever  ready  to  rail  at  the  mote  in  his 
brother's  eye,  without  considering  the  beam  that  is  in  his  own. 


810          ADDRESS  BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

This  should  not  be.  We  all  have  our  motes  or  beams.  We  are 
all  frail ;  perfection  is  the  attribute  of  none.  Prejudice  or  pre- 
judgment  should  be  indulged  toward  none.  Prejudice!  What 
wrongs,  what  injuries  what  mischiefs,  what  lamentable  conse 
quences,  have  resulted  at  all  times  from  nothing  but  this  perver 
sity  of  the  intellect !  Of  all  the  obstacles  to  the  advancement  of 
truth  and  human  progress,  in  every  department — in  science,  in 
art,  in  government,  and  in  religion,  in  all  ages  and  climes,  not 
one  on  the  list  is  more  formidable,  more  difficult  to  overcome  and 
subdue,  than  this  horrible  distortion  of  the  moral  as  well  as  in 
tellectual  faculties.  It  is  a  host  of  evil  within  itself.  I  could 
enjoin  no  greater  duty  upon  my  countrymen  now,  North  and 
South,  than  the  exercise  of  that  degree  of  forbearance  which 
would  enable  them  to  conquer  their  prejudices.  One  of  -the 
highest  exhibitions  of  the  moral  sublime  the  world  ever  wit 
nessed,  was  that  of  Daniel  Webster,  when  in  an  open  barouche 
in  the  streets  of  Boston,  he  proclaimed  in  substance,  to  a  vast 
assembly  of  his  constituents — unwilling  hearers — that  "  they  had 
conquered  an  uncongenial  clime ;  they  had  conquered  a  sterile 
soil ;  they  had  conquered  the  winds  and  currents  of  the  ocean ; 
they  had  conquered  most  of  the  elements  of  nature ;  but  they 
must  yet  learn  to  conquer  their  prejudices !"  I  know  of  no 
more  fitting  incident  or  scene  in  the  life  of  that  wonderful  man, 
"  Clarus  et  vir  Fortissimus,"  for  perpetuating  the  memory  of  the 
true  greatness  of  his  character,  on  canvas  or  in  marble,  than  a 
representation  of  him  as  he  then  and  there  stood  and  spoke !  It 
was  an  exhibition  of  moral  grandeur  surpassing  that  of  Aristides 
when  he  said,  "  Oh  Athenians,  what  Themistocles  recommends 
would  be  greatly  to  your  interest,  but  it  would  be  unjust" ! 

I  say  to  you,  and  if  my  voice  could  extend  throughout  this 
vast  country,  over  hill  and  dale,  over  mountain  and  valley,  to 
hovel,  hamlet  and  mansion,  village,  town  and  city,  I  would  say, 
among  the  first,  looking  to  restoration  of  peace,  prosperity  and 
harmony  in  this  land,  is  the  great  duty  of  exercising  that  degree 
of  forbearance  which  will  enable  them  to  conquer  their  prejudices. 
Prejudices  against  communities  as  well  as  individuals. 

And  next  to  that,  the  indulgence  of  a  Christian  spirit  of  char 
ity.  "  Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged,"  especially  in  mat 
ters  growing  out  of  the  late  war.  Most  of  the  wars  that  have 
scourged  the  world,  even  in  the  Christian  era,  have  arisen  on 
points  of  conscience,  or  differences  as  to  the  surest  wray  of  sal 
vation.  A  strange  way  that  to  heaven,  is  it  not  ?  How  much 
disgrace  to  the  church,  and  shame  to  mankind,  would  have  been 
avoided,  if  the  ejaculation  of  each  breast  had  been,  at  all  times,  as 
it  should  have  been, 

"  Let  not  this  weak,  unknowing  hand, 

Presume  Thy  bolts  to  throw ; 
And  deal  damnation  round  the  land, 
On  him  /deem  Tliy  foe.  " 


ADDRESS  BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE.          811 

How  equally  proper  is  it  now,  when  the  spirit  of  peace  seems 
to  be  hovering  over  our  war-stricken  land,  that  in  canvassing  the 
conduct  or  motives  of  others  during  the  late  conflict,  this  great 
truth  should  be  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  all, 

"  Who  made  the  heart  ?     Tis  He  alone 

Decidedly,  can  try  us  ; 
He  knows  each  chord,  its  various  tone, 

Each  spring,  its  various  bias ; 
Then  at  the  balance,  let's  be  mute, 

We  never  can  adjust  it ; 
What's  done,  we  partly  may  compute, 

But  know  not  what's  resisted." 

Of  all  the  heaven  descended  virtues,  that  elevate  and  ennoble 
human  nature,  the  highest,  the  sublimest,  and  the  divinest  is 
charity.  By  all  means,  then,  fail  not  to  exercise  and  cultivate 
this  soul-regenerating  element  of  fallen  nature.  Let  it  be  culti 
vated  and  exercised  not  only  amongst  ourselves  and  toward  our 
selves,  on  all  questions  of  motive  or  conduct  touching  the  late 
war,  but  toward  all  mankind.  Even  toward  our  enemies,  if  we 
have  any,  let  the  aspirations  of  our  hearts  be.  "  Father,  forgive 
them;  they  know  not  what  they  do."  The  exercise  of  patience, 
forbearance,  and  charity,  therefore,  are  the  three  first  duties  I 
would  at  this  time  enjoin — and  of  these  three,  "  the  greatest  is 
charity." 

But  to  proceed.  Another  one  of  our  present  duties,  is  this : 
we  should  accept  the  issues  of  the  war,  and  abide  by  them  in 
good  faith.  This,  I  feel  fully  persuaded,  it  is  your  purpose  to 
do,  as  well  as  that  of  your  constituents.  The  people  of  Georgia 
have  in  convention  revoked  and  annulled  her  ordinance  of  1861, 
which  was  intended  to  sever  her  from  the  compact  of  Union  of 
1187.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  has  been  reor- 
dained  as  the  organic  law  of  our  land.  Whatever  differences  of 
opinion  heretofore  existed  as  to  where  our  allegiance  was  due, 
during  the  late  state  of  things,  none  for  any  practical  purpose 
can  exist  now.  Whether  Georgia,  by  the  action  of  her  conven 
tion  of  1861,  was  ever  rightfully  out  of  the  Union  or  not,  there 
can  be  no  question  that  she  is  now  in,  so  far  as  depends  upon 
her  will  and  deed.  The  whole  United  States,  therefore,  is  now 
without  question  our  country,  to  be  cherished  and  defended  as 
such,  by  all  our  hearts  and  by  all  our  arms. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  treaties  and  laws 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,  are  now  acknowledged  to  be  the  para 
mount  law  in  this  whole  country.  Whoever,  therefore,  is  true  to 
these  principles  as  now  recognized,  is  loyal  as  far  as  that  term 
has  any  legitimate  use  or  force  under  our  institutions.  This  is 
the  only  kind  of  loyalty  and  the  only  test  of  loyalty  the  constitu 
tion  itself  requires.  In  any  other  view,  every  thing  pertaining  to 
restoration,  so  far  as  regards  the  great  body  of  the  people  in  at 
least  eleven  States  of  the  Union,  is  but  making  a  promise  to  the 


812  ADDRESS   BEFORE  THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

car  to  be  broken  to  the  hope.  All,  therefore,  who  accept  the  is 
sue  of  war  in  good  faith,  and  come  up  to  the  test  required  by  the 
constitution,  are  now  loyal,  however  they  may  have  heretofore 
been. 

But  with  this  change  comes  a  new  order  of  things.  One  of  the 
results  of  the  war  is  a  total  change  in  our  whole  internal  polity. 
Our  former  social  fabric  has  been  entirely  subverted.  Like  those 
convulsions  in  nature  which  break  up  old  incrustations,  the  war 
has  wrought  a  new  epoch  in  our  political  existence.  Old  things 
have  passed  away,  and  all  things  among  us  in  this  respect  are 
new.  The  relation  heretofore,  under  our  old  system,  existing 
between  the  African  and  European  races,  no  longer  exists. 
Slavery,  as  it  was  called,  or  the  status  of  the  black  race,  their  sub 
ordination  to  the  white,  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rested,  is 
abolished  forever,  not  only  in  Georgia,  but  throughout  the  limits 
of  the  United  States.  This  change  should  be  received  and  ac 
cepted  as  an  irrevocable  fact.  It  is  a  bootless  question  now  to 
discuss,  whether  the  new  sj^stem  is  better  for  both  races  than  the 
old  one  was  or  not.  That  may  be  proper  matter  for  the  philo 
sophic  and  philanthropic  historian,  at  some  future  time  to  inquire 
into,  after  the  new  system  shall  have  been  fully  and  fairly  tried. 

All  changes  of  systems  or  proposed  reforms  are  but  experi 
ments  and  problems  to  be  solved.  Our  system  of  self-govern 
ment  was  an  experiment  at  first.  Perhaps  as  a  problem  it  is  not 
yet  solved.  Our  present  duty  on  this  subject  is  not  with  the  past 
or  the  future ;  it  is  with  the  present.  The  wisest  and  the  best 
often  err,  in  their  judgments  as  to  the  probable  workings  of  any 
new  system.  Let  us  therefore  give  this  one  a  fair  and  just  trial, 
without  prejudice,  and  with  that  earnestness  of  purpose  which 
always  looks  hopefully  to  success.  It  is  an  ethnological  problem, 
on  the  solution  of  which  depends,  not  only  the  best  interests  of 
both  races,  but  it  may  be  the  existence  of  one  or  the  other,  if  not 
both. 

This  duty  of  giving  this  new  system  a  fair  and  just  trial  will 
require  of  you,  as  legislators  of  the  land,  great  changes  in  our 
former  laws  in  regard  to  this  large  class  of  population.  Wise 
and  humane  provisions  should  be  made  for  them.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  go  into  detail.  Suffice  it  to  say  on  this  occasion,  that  am 
ple  and  full  protection  should  be  secured  to  them,  so  that  they 
may  stand  equal  before  the  law,  in  the  possession  and  enjoyment 
of  all  rights  of  person,  liberty  and  property.  Many  considerations 
claim  this  at  your  hands.  Among  these  may  be  stated  their  fidelity 
in  times  past.  They  cultivated  your  fields,  ministered  to  your 
personal  wants  and  comforts,  nursed  and  reared  your  children ; 
and  even  in  the  hour  of  danger  and  peril  they  were,  in  the  main, 
true  to  you  and  yours.  To  them  we  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude,  as 
well  as  acts  of  kindness.  This  should  also  be  done  because  they 
are  poor,  untutored,  uninformed ;  many  of  them  helpless,  liable  to 
be  imposed  upon,  and  need  it.  Legislation  should  ever  look  to 


ADDRESS   BEFOEE   THE   GEORGIA  LEGISLATURE.          813 

the  protection  of  the  weak  against  the  strong.  Whatever  may  be 
said  of  the  equality  of  races,  or  their  natural  capacity  to  become 
equal,  no  one  can  doubt  that  at  this  time  this  race  among  us  is 
not  equal  to  the  Caucasian.  This  inequality  does  not  lessen  the 
moral  obligations  on  the  part  of  the  superior  to  the  inferior,  it 
rather  increases  them.  From  him  who  has  much,  more  is  required 
than  from  him  who  has  little.  The  present  generation  of  them,  it  is 
true,  is  far  above  their  savage  progenitors,  who  were  at  first  intro 
duced  into  this  country,  in  general  intelligence,  virtue,  and  moral 
culture.  This  shows  capacity  for  improvement.  But  in  all  the 
higher  characteristics  of  mental  development,  they  are  still  very 
far  below  the  European  type.  What  further  advancement  they 
may  make,  or  to  what  standard  they  may  attain,  under  a  different 
sj^stem  of  laws  every  way  suitable  and  wisely  applicable  to  their 
changed  condition,  time  alone  can  disclose.  I  speak  of  them  as 
we  now  know  them  to  be ;  having  no  longer  the  protection  of  a 
master,  or  legal  guardian,  they  now  need  all  the  protection  which 
the  shield  of  the  law  can  give. 

But,  above  all,  this  protection  should  be  secured,  because  it  is 
right  and  just  that  it  should  be,  upon  general  principles.  All 
governments  in  their  organic  structure,  as  well  as  in  their  admin 
istration,  should  have  this  leading  object  in  view ;  the  good  of  the 
governed.  Protection  and  security  to  all  under  its  jurisdiction, 
should  be  the  chief  end  of  every  government.  It  is  a  melancholy 
truth  that  while  this  should  be  the  chief  end  of  all  governments, 
most  of  them  are'used  only  as  instruments  of  power,  for  the  aggran 
dizement  of  the  few,  at  the  expense  of,  and  by  the  oppression  of, 
the  many.  Such  are  not  our  ideas  of  government,  never  have 
been  and  never  should  be.  Governments,  according  to  our  ideas, 
should  look  to  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not  a  part  only. 
"  The  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,"  is  a  favorite  dogma 
with  some.  Some  so  defended  our  old  system.  But  you  know 
this  was  never  my  doctrine.  The  greatest  good  to  all,  without 
detriment  or  injury  to  any,  is  the  true  rule.  Those  governments 
only  are  founded  upon  correct  principles,  of  reason  and  justice, 
which  look  to  the  greatest  attainable  advancement,  improvement 
and  progress,  physically,  intellectually  and  morally,  of  all  classes 
and  conditions  within  their  rightful  jurisdiction.  If  our  old  sys 
tem  was  not  the  best,  or  could  not  have  been  made  the  best,  for 
both  races,  in  this  respect  and  upon  this  basis,  it  ought  to  have 
been  abolished.  This  was  my  view  of  that  system  while  it  lasted, 
and  I  repeat  it  now  that  it  is  no  more.  In  legislation,  therefore, 
under  the  new  system,  you  should  look  to  the  best  interest  of  all 
classes ;  their  protection,  security,  advancement  and  improvement, 
physically,  intellectually,  and  morally.  All  obstacles,  if  there  be 
any,  should  be  removed,  which  can  possibly  hinder  or  retard,  the 
improvement  of  the  blacks  to  the  extent  of  their  capacity.  All 
proper  aid  should  be  given  to  their  own  efforts.  Channels  of 
education  should  be  opened  up  to  them.  Schools,  and  the  usual 


814:  ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA  LEGISLATURE. 

means  of  moral  and  intellectual  training,  should  be  encouraged 
amongst  them.  This  is  the  dictate,  not  only  of  what  is  right  and 
proper,  and  just  in  itself,  but  it  is  also  the  promptings  of  the  high 
est  considerations  of  interest.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  greater 
evil  or  curse,  that  could  befall  our  country,  stricken  and  distressed 
as  it  now  is,  than  for  so  large  a  portion  of  its  population,  as  this 
class  will  quite  probably  constitute  amongst  us,  hereafter,  to  be 
reared  i»  ignorance,  depravity  and  vice.  In  view  of  such  a  state 
of  things  well  might  the  prudent  even  now  look  to  its  abandon 
ment.  Let  us  not  however  indulge  in  such  thoughts  of  the  future, 
nor  let  us,  without  an  effort,  say  the  system  cannot  be  wrorked. 
Let  us  not,  standing  still,  hesitatingly  ask,  "  Can  there  any  good 
thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?"  but  let  us  rather  say  as  Gamaliel 
did,  "  If  this  counsel  or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to 
naught,  but  if  it  be  of  God  ye  cannot  overthrow  it,  lest  haply  ye 
be  found  even  to  fight  against  God."  The  most  vexed  questions 
of  the  age  are  social  problems.  These  we  have  heretofore  had 
but  little  to  do  with;  we  were  relieved  from-them  by  our  peculiar 
institution.  Emancipation  of  the  blacks,  with  its  consequences, 
was  ever  considered  by  me  with  much  more  interest  as  a  social 
question,  one  relating  to  the  proper  status  of  the  different  elements 
of  society,  and  their  relations  toward  each  other,  looking  to  the 
best  interest  of  all,  than  in  any  other  light.  The  pecuniary  as 
pect  of  it,  the  considerations  of  labor  and  capital,  in  a  politico 
economic  view,  sunk  into  insignificance,  in  comparison  with  this. 
This  problem,  as  one  of  the  results  of  the  war,  is  now  upon  us, 
presenting  one  of  the  most  perplexing  questions  of  the  sort  that 
any  people  ever  had  to  deal  with.  Let  us  resolve  to  do  the  best 
we  can  with  it,  from  all  the  lights  we  have,  or  can  get  from  any 
quarter.  With  this  view,  and  in  this  connection,  I  take  the  liberty 
of  quoting  for  your  consideration,  some  remarks  even  from  the 
Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  I  met  with  them  some  months  ago 
while  pondering  on  this  subject,  and  was  as  much  struck  as  sur 
prised,  with  the  drift  of  their  philosophy,  coming  from  the  source 
they  did.  I  give  them  as  I  find  them  in  the  New  York  Times 
where  they  were  reported.  You  may  be  as  much  surprised  at 
hearing  such  ideas  from  Mr.  Beecher,  as  I  was,  But  however 
much  we  may  differ  from  him  011  many  questions,  and  on  many 
questions  connected  with  this  subject,  yet  all  must  admit  him 
to  rank  amongst  the  master  spirits  of  the  age.  And  no  one  per 
haps  has  contributed  more  by  the  power  of  his  pen  and  voice  in 
bringing  about  the  present  state  of  things,  than  he  has.  Yet, 
nevertheless,  I  commend  to  your  serious  consideration,  as  perti 
nent  to  my  present  object,  what  he  was  reported  to  have  said,  as 
follows : 

'*  In  our  land  and  time  facts  and  questions  are  pressed  upon  us  which 
demand  Christian  settlement — settlement  on  this  ground  and  doctrine. 
We  cannot  escape  the  responsibility.  Being  strong  and  powerful,  we 
must  nurse,  and  help,  and  educate,  and  foster  the  weak,  and  poor,  and  igno- 


ADDEESS  BEFORE   THE   GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE.          815 

rant.  For  my  own  part  I  cannot  see  how  we  shall  escape  the  most  terri 
ble  conflict  or  classes,  by  and  by,  unless  we  are  educated  into  this  doc- 
Irine  of  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  superior  to  the  inferior.  We  are  told  by 
zealous  and  fanatical  individuals,  that  all  men  are  equal.  We  know  bet 
ter.  They  are  not  equal.  A  common  brotherhood  teaches  no  such  ab 
surdity.  A  theory  of  universal,  physical  likeness,  is  no  more  absurd  than 
this.  Now,  as  in  all  times,  the  strong  go  to  the  top,  the  weak  go  to  the 
bottom.  Its  natural,  right  and  can't  be  helped.  All  branches  are  not  at 
the  top  of  the  tree,  but  the  top  does  not  despise  the  lower ;  nor  do  they 
all  despise  the  limb  or  the  parent  trunk ;  and  so  with  the  body  politic, 
there  must  be  classes.  Some  must  be  at  the  top  and  some  must  be  at 
the  bottom,  It  is  difficult  to  foresee,  and  estimate  the  development  of 
the  poiver  of  classes  in  America.  They  are  simply  inevitable.  They  are 
here  now,  and  will  be  more.  If  they  are  friendly,  living  at  peace,  loving 
and  respecting  and  helping  one  another,  all  will  be  well.  But  if  they  are 
selfish,  unchristian  ;  if  the  old  heathen  feeling  is  to  reign,  each  extracting 
all  he  can  from  his  neighbor,  and  caring  nothing  for  him  ;  society  will  be 
lined  by  classes  as  by  seams — like  batteries,  each  firing  broadside  after 
broadside,  the  one  upon  the  other.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  law  oNove 
prevails,  there  will  be  no  ill-will,  no  envy,  no  disturbance.  Does  a  child 
hate  his  father  because  -he  is  chief,  because  he  is  strong  and  wise  ?  On 
the  contrary,  he  grows  with  his  father's  growth,  and  strengthens  with  his 
strength.  And  if  in  society  there  should  be  fifty  grades  or  classes,  all 
helping  each  other,  there  will  be  no  trouble,  but  perfect  satisfaction  and 
content.  This  Christian  doctrine  carried  into  practice,  will  easily  settle 
the  most  troublesome  of  all  home  present  questions." 

What  he  here  said  of  the  state  of  things  where  he  spoke  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  and  the  fearful  antagonism  of  classes  there, 
is  much  more  applicable  to  us.  Here,  it  is  true,  only  two  great 
classes  exist,  or  are  likely  to  exist,  but  these  are  deeply  marked 
by  distinctions  bearing  the  impress  of  nature.  The  one  is  now 
beyond  all  question  greatly  superior  to  the  other.  These  classes 
are  as  distinct  as  races  of  men  can  be.  The  one  is  of  the  highest 
type  of  humanity,  the  other  of  the  lowest.  All  that  he  says  of 
the  duty  of  the  superior,  to  protect,  to  aid,  to  encourage,  and  to 
help  the  inferior,  I  fully  and  cordially  indorse  and  commend  to 
you  as  quite  as  applicable  to  us  and  our  situation,  as  it  was  to  his 
auditors.  Whether  the  doctrine,  if  carried  out  and  practiced,  will 
settle  all  these  most  troublesome  home  questions  with  us  as  easily 
as  he  seemed  to  think  it  would  like  home  questions  with  those 
whom  he  was  addressing,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  I  have  no 
hesitancy,  however,  in  saying  that  the  general  principles  announced 
by  him  are  good.  Let  them  be  adopted  by  us  as  far  as  practica 
ble.  No  harm  can  come  from  it,  much  good  may.  Whether  the 
great  barrier  of  races  which  the  Creator  has  placed  between  this, 
our  inferior  class  and  ourselves,,  shall  prevent  a  success  of  the  ex 
periment  now  on  trial,  of  a  peaceful,  happy,  and  prosperous  com 
munity,  composed  of  such  elements  and  sustaining  present  rela 
tions  toward  each  other,  or  even  a  further  elevation  on  the  part 
of  the  inferior,  if  they  prove  themselves  fit  for  it,  let  the  future, 
under  the  dispensations  of  Providence,  decide.  We  have  to  deal 


816  ADDRESS   BEFORE    THE    GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

with  the  present.  Let  us  do  our  duty  now,  leaving  results  and 
ultimate  consequences  to  that 

"  Divinity  which  shapes  our  ends, 
Rough  hew  them  how  we  will." 

In  all  things  on  this  subject,  as  in  all  others,  let  our  guide  be  the 
admirable  motto  of  our  State.  Let  our  counsels  be  governed  by 
wisdom,  our  measures  by  moderation,  and  our  principles  by  justice. 

So  much  for  what  I  have  to  say  on  this  occasion,  touching  our 
present  duties  on  this  absorbing  subject,  and  some  of  our  duties 
in  reference  to  a  restoration  of  peace,  law  and  order ;  without 
which  all  must,  sooner  or  later,  end  in  utter  confusion,  anarchy 
and  despotism.  I  have,  as  I  said  I  should,  only  glanced  at  some 
general  ideas. 

Now  as  to  the  future,  and  the  prospect  before  us!  On  this 
branch  of  the  subject  I  can  add  but  little.  You  can  form  some 
ideas  of  my  views  of  that  from  what  has  already  been  said.  Would 
that  I  could  say  something  cheerful ;  but  that  caiidor,  which  has 
marked  all  that  I  have  said,  compels  me  to  say  that  to  me  the  fu 
ture  is  far  from  being  bright.  Nay,  it  is  dark  and  impenetrable  ; 
thick  gloom  curtains  and  closes  in  the  horizon  all  around  us. 
Thus  much  I  can  say :  my  only  hope  is  in  the  peaceful  re-estab 
lishment  of  good  government,  and  its  peaceful  maintenance  after 
ward.  And,  further,  the  most  hopeful  prospect  to  this  end  now 
is  the  restoration  of  the  old  Union,  and  with  it  the  speedy  return 
of  fraternal  feeling  throughout  its  length  and  breadth.  These  re 
sults  depend  upon  the  people  themselves — upon  the  people  of  the 
North  quite  as  much  as  the  people  of  the  South — upon  their  vir 
tue,  intelligence,  and  patriotism.  I  repeat,  I  have  faith  in  the 
American  people,  in  their  virtue,  intelligence  and  patriotism.  But 
for  this  I  should  long  since  have  despaired.  Dark  and  gloomy 
as  the  present  hour  is,  I  do  not  yet  despair  of  free  institutions. 
Let  but  the  virtue,  intelligence,  and  patriotism  of  the  people 
throughout  the  whole  country  be  properly  appealed  to,  aroused 
and  brought  into  action,  and  all  may  yet  be  well.  The  masses, 
everj^where,  are  alike  equally  interested  in  the  great  object.  Let 
old  issues,  old  questions,  old  differences,  and  old  feuds,  be  regarded 
as  fossils  of  another  epoch.  They  belong  to  what  may  hereafter 
be  considered,  the  Silurian  period  of  our  history.  Great,  new, 
living  questions  are  before  us.  Let  it  not  be  said  of  us  in  this  day, 
not  yet  passed,  of  our  cpuntry's  greatest  trial  and  agony,  that, 
"there  was  a  party  for  Caesar,  a  party  for  Pompey,  and  a  party 
for  Brutus,  but  no  party  for  Rome." 

But  let  all  patriots,  by  whatever  distinctive  name  heretofore 
styled,  rally,  in  all  elections  everywhere,  to  the  support  of  him, 
be  he  who  he  may,  who  bears  the  standard  with  "  Constitutional 
JJnion"  emblazoned  on  its  folds.  President  Johnson  is  now,  in 
my  judgment,  the  chief  great  standard-bearer  of  these  principles, 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  GEORGIA  LEGISLATURE.    817 

and  in  his  efforts  at  restoration  should  receive  the  cordial  sup 
port  of  every  well-wisher  of  his  country. 

In  this  consists,  on  this  rests,  my  only  hope.  Should  he  be 
sustained,  and  the  government  be  restored  to  its  former  functions, 
all  the  States  brought  back  to  their  practical  relations  under  the 
constitution,  our  situation  will  be  greatly  changed  from  what  it 
was  before.  A  radical  and  fundamental  change,  as  has  been  stated, 
has  been  made  in  that  organic  law.  We  shall  have  lost  what  was 
known  as  our  "  peculiar  institution"  which  was  so  intertwined  with 
the  whole  framework  of  our  State  body  politic.  We  shall  have  lost 
nearly  half  the  accumulated  capital  of  a  century.  But  we  shall 
have  still  left  all  the  essentials  of  free  government,  contained  and 
embodied  in  the  old  constitution,  untouched  and  unimpaired  as 
they  came  from  the  hands  of  our  fathers.  With  these,  even  if  we 
had  to  begin  entirely  anew,  the  prospect  before  us  would  be  much 
more  encouraging  than  the  prospect  was  before  them,  when  they 
fled  from  the  oppressions  of  the  old  world,  and  sought  shelter  and 
homes  in  this  then  wilderness  land.  The  liberties  we  begin  with, 
they  had  to  achieve.  With  the  same  energies  and  virtues  they 
displayed,  we  have  much  more  to  cheer  us  than  they  had.  With 
a  climate  unrivalled  in  salubrity ;  with  a  soil  unsurpassed  in  fer 
tility  ;  and  with  products  unequalled  in  value  in  the  markets  of 
the  world,  to  say  nothing  of  our  mineral  resources,  we  shall  have 
much  still  to  wed  us  to  the  good  old  land.  With  good  govern 
ment,  the  matrix  from  which  alone  spring  all  great  human  achiev- 
ments,  we  shall  lack  nothing  but  our  own  proper  exertions,  not 
only  to  recover  our  former  prosperity,  but  to  attain  a  much  higher 
degree  of  development  in  every  thing  that  characterizes  a  great, 
free,  and  happy  people.  At  least  I  know  of  no  other  land  that 
the  sun  shines  upon,  that  offers  better  prospects  under  the  con 
tingencies  stated. 

The  old  Union  was  based  upon  the  assumption,  that  it  was  for 
the  best  interest  of  the  peoj>.e  of  all  the  States  to  be  united  as 
they  were,  each  State  faithfully  performing  to  the  people  of  the 
other  States  all  their  obligations  under  the  common  compact.  I 
always  thought  this  assumption  was  founded  upon  broad,  correct, 
and  statesman-like  principles.  I  think  so  yet.  It  was  only  when 
it  seemed  to  be  impossible  further  to  maintain  it,  without  hazard 
ing  greater  evils  than  would  perhaps  attend  a  separation,  that  I 
yielded  my  assent  in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  Georgia,  to  try  the 
experiment  which  has  just  resulted  so  disastrously  to  us.  In 
deed,  during  the  whole  lamentable  conflict,  it  was  my  opinion 
that  however  the  pending  strife  might  terminate,  so  far  as  the 
appeal  to  the  sword  was  concerned,  yet  after  a  while,  when  the 
passions  and  excitements  of  the  day  should  pass  away,  an  adjust 
ment  or  arrangement  would  be  made  upon  continental  principles, 
upon  the  general  basis  of  "  reciprocal  advantage  and  mutual  con 
venience,"  on  which  the  Union  was  first  established.  My  earnest 
desire,  however,  throughout,  was  whatever  might  be  done,  might 
52 


818          ADDRESS   BEFORE   THE    GEORGIA   LEGISLATURE. 

be  peaceably  done ;  might  be  the  result  of  calm,  dispassionate, 
and  enlightened  reason  ;  looking  to  the  permanent  interests  and 
welfare  of  all.  And  now,  after  the  severe  chastisement  of  war, 
if  the  general  sense  of  the  whole  country  shall  come  back  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  original  assumption,  that  it  is  for  the 
best  interests  of  all  the  States  to  be  so  united,  as  I  trust  it  will ; 
the  States  still  being  "  separate  as  the  billows  but  one  as  the  sea  ;" 
I  can  perceive  no  reason  why,  under  such  restoratian,  we  as  a 
whole,  with  "  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  na 
tions  and  entangling  alliances  with  none,"  may  not  enter  upon  a 
new  career,  exciting  increased  wonder  in  the  old  world,  by  gran 
der  achievements  hereafter  to  be  made,  than  any  heretofore  at 
tained,  by  the  peaceful  and  harmonious  workings  of  our  American 
institutions  of  self-government.  All  this  is  possible  if  the  hearts 
of  the  people  be  right.  It  is  my  earnest  wish  to  see  it.  Fondly 
would  I  indulge  my  fancy  in  gazing  on  such  a  picture  of  the  fu 
ture.  With  what  rapture  may  we  not  suppose  the  spirits  of  our 
fathers  would  hail  its  opening  scenes  from  their  mansions  above. 
Such  are  my  hopes,  resting  on  such  contingencies.  But  if,  in 
stead  of  all  this,  the  passions  of  the  day  shall  continue  to  bear 
sway ;  if  prejudice  shall  rule  the  hour  ;  if  a  conflict  of  races  shall 
arise ;  if  ambition  shall  turn  the  scale ;  if  the  sword  shall  be 
thrown  in  the  balance  against  patriotism ;  if  the  embers  of  the 
late  war  shall  be  kept  a-glowing  until  with  new  fuel  they  shall 
flame  up  again,  then  our  present  gloom  is  but  the  shadow,  the 
penumbra  of  that  deeper  and  darker  eclipse,  which  is  to  totally 
obscure  this  hemisphere  and  blight  forever  the  anxious  anticipa 
tions  and  expectations  of  mankind !  Then,  hereafter,  by  some 
bard  it  may  be  sung, 

"  The  Star  of  Hope  shone  brightest  in  the  West, 
The  hope  of  Liberty,  the  last,  the  best ; 
That,  too,  has  set,  upon  her  darkened  shore, 
And  Hope  and  Freedom  light  up  earth  no  more." 

May  we  not  all,  on  this  occasion,  on  this  anniversary  of  the 
birth  day  of  Washington,  join  in  a  fervent  prayer  to  Heaven  that 
the  Great  Ruler  of  events  may  avert  from  this  land  such  a  fall, 
such  a  fate,  and  such  a  requiem ! 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   819 


KESTOBATIOlSr. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  BEFORE 
THE   RECONSTRUCTION    COMMITTEE. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. — Sworn  and  examined  : 

By  Mr.  Boutwell  : 

Q.  State  your  residence. 

A.  Crawfordsville,  Georgia. 

Q.  What  means  have  you  had  since  Lee's  surrender  to  ascer 
tain  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Georgia  with  regard  to  the 
Union  ? 

A.  I  was  at  home,  in  Georgia,  at  the  time  of  the  surrender  of 
General  Lee,  and  remained  there  until  the  llth  of  May,  and 
during  that  time  conferred  very  freely  with  the  people  in  my  im 
mediate  neighborhood,  with  the  governor  of  the  State,  and  with 
one  or  two  other  leading  or  prominent  men  in  the  State.  From 
the  llth  of  May  until  my  return  to  Georgia,  which  was  the  25th 
of  October,  I  had  no  means  of  knowing  any  thing  of  the  public 
sentiment  there,  except  through  the  public  press  and  such  letters 
as  I  received.  Fro  m  the  time  of  my  return  until  I  left  the  State 
on  my  present  visit  here,  I  had  very  extensive  intercourse  with 
the  people,  visiting  Augusta,  visiting  Milledgeville  during  the 
session  of  the  legislature,  first  on  their  assembling,  again  in  Janu 
ary  upon  their  reassembling,  and  again  in  the  latter  part  of  Feb 
ruary.  While  there,  I  conversed  very  freely  and  fully  with  all 
the-prominent  leading  men,  or  most  of  them,  in  the  legislature, 
and  met  a  great  many  of  the  prominent,  influential  men  of  the 
State,  not  connected  with  the  legislature  ;  and  by  letters  from  and 
correspondence  with  men  in  the  State  whom  I  have  not  met.  I 
believe  that  embraces  a  full  answer  to  the  question  as  to  my 
means  of  ascertaining  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  that  State 
upon  the  subject  stated  in  the  question. 

Q.  As  the  result  of  your  observations,  what  is  your  opinion  of 
the  purpose  of  the  people  with  reference  to  the  reconstruction  of 
the  government,  and  what  are  their  desires  and  purposes  concern 
ing  the  maintenance  of  the  government  ? 

A.  My  opinion,  and  decided  opinion,  is  that  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  people  of  Georgia  are  exceedingly  anxious  for  the 
restoration  of  the  government,  and  for  the  State  to  take  her  for 
mer  position  in  the  Union,  to  have  her  senators  and  representa 
tives  admitted  into  Congress,  and  to  enjoy  all  her  rights  and  to 
discharge  all  her  obligations  as  a  State  under  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  as  it  stands  amended. 

Q.  What  are  their  present  views  concerning  the  justice  of  the 
rebellion  ?  Do  they  at  present  believe  that  it  was  a  reasonable 
and  proper  undertaking,  or  otherwise? 

A.  My  opinion  of  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of  Georgia  upon 


820    TESTIMONY  BEFOKE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

that  subject  is,  that  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  secession  was  re 
sorted  to  by  them  from  a  desire  to  render  their  liberties  and  in 
stitutions  more  secure,  and  a  belief  on  their  part  that  this  was 
absolutely  necessary  for  that  object.  They  were  divided  upon  the 
question  of  the  polic}^  of  the  measure ;  there  was,  however,  but 
very  little  division  among  them  upon  the  question  of  the  right  of 
it.  It  is  now  their  belief,  in  my  opinion — and  I  give  it  merely  as 
an  opinion — that  the  surest,  if  not  the  only  hope  for  their  liberties 
is  the  restoration  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  under  the  constitution. 

Q.  Has  there  been  any  change  of  opinion  as  to  the  right  of  se 
cession,  as  a  right  in  the  people  or  in  the  States  ? 

A.  I  think  there  has  been  a  very  decided  change  of  opinion,  as 
to  the  policy,  by  those  who  favored  it.  I  think  the  people  gen 
erally  are  satisfied  sufficiently  with  the  experiment,  never  to  re 
sort  to  that  measure  of  redress  again,  by  force,  whatever  may  be 
their  own  abstract  ideas  upon  that  subject.  They  have  given  up 
all  idea  of  a  maintenance  of  these  opinions  by  a  resort  to  force. 
They  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  better  to  appeal  to 
the  forums  of  reason  and  justice,  to  the  halls  of  legislation  and 
the  courts,  for  the  preservation  of  the  principles  of  constitutional 
liberty,  than  to  the  arena  of  arms.  It  is  nr^  settled  conviction 
that  there  is  not  any  idea  cherished  at  all  in  the  public  mind  of 
Georgia,  of  ever  resorting  again  to  secession,  or  to  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  secession  by  force.  That  whole  policy  for  the  main 
tenance  of  their  rights,  in  my  opinion,  is  at  this  time  totally  aban 
doned. 

Q.  But  the  opinion  as  to  the  right,  as  I  understand,  remains 
substantially  the  same  ? 

A.  I  cannot  answer  as  to  that.  Some  may  have  changed  their 
opinion  in  this  respect.  It  would  be  an  unusual  thing,  as  well  as 
a  difficult  matter,  for  a  whole  people  to  change  their  convictions 
upon  abstract  truths  or  principles.  I  have  not  heard  this  view 
of  the  subject  debated  or  discussed  recently,  and  I  wish  to  be 
understood  as  giving  my  opinion  only  on  that  branch  of  the  sub 
ject  which  is  of  practical  character  and  importance. 

Q.  To  what  do  you  attribute  the  change  of  opinion  as  to  the 
propriety  of  attempting  to  maintain  their  views  by  force  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  my  opinion  about  that — my  individual  opinion, 
derived  from  observation — is  that  this  change  of  opinion  arose 
mainly  from  the  operation  of  the  war  among  themselves,  and  the 
results  of  the  conflict,  from  their  own  authorities  on  their  indi 
vidual  rights  of  person  and  property — the  general  breaking  down 
of  constitutional  barriers  which  usually  attend  all  protracted 
wars. 

Q.  In  1861,  when  the  ordinance  of  secession  was  adopted  in 
your  State,  to  what  extent  was  it  supported  by  the  people  ? 

A.  After  the  proclamation  of  President  Lincoln  calling  out 
seventy-five  thousand  militia,  under  the  circumstances  it  was  is- 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.    821 

sued,  and  blockading  the  southern  ports,  and  the  suspension  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  southern  cause,  as  it  was  termed, 
received  the  almost  unanimous  support  of  the  people  of  Georgia, 
Before  that  they  were  very  much  divided  on  the  question  of  the 
policy  of  secession.  But  afterward  they  supported  the  cause 
within  the  range  of  my  knowledge,  with  very  few  exceptions, 
(there  were  some  few  exceptions,  not  exceeding  half  a  dozen  I 
think.)  The  impression  then  prevailing  was,  that  public  liberty 
was  endangered,  and  they  supported  the  cause  because  of  their 
zeal  for  constitutional  rights.  They  still  differed  very  much  as 
to  the  ultimate  object  to  be  attained,  and  the  means  to  be  used, 
but  these  differences  yielded  to  the  emergency  of  the  apprehended 
common  danger. 

Q.  Was  not  the  ordinance  of  secession  adopted  in  Georgia, 
earlier  in  date  than  the  proclamation  for  seventy-five  thousand 
volunteers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  stated  that  the  people  were  very  much  divided 
on  the  question  of  the  ordinance  of  secession,  but  that  after  the 
proclamation  the  people  became  almost  unanimous  in  their  sup 
port  of  the  cause.  There  were  some  few  exceptions  in  the  State 
— I  think  not  more  than  half  a  dozen  among  my  acquaintances.  As  I 
said,  while  they  were  thus  almost  unanimous  in  support  of  the 
cause,  they  differed  also  as  to  the  end  to  be  attained  by  sustaining  it 
Some  looked  to  an  adjustment  or  settlement  of  the  controversy  upon 
any  basis  that  would  secure  their  constitutional  rights ;  others 
looked  to  a  southern  separate  nationality  as  their  only  object  and 
hope.  These  different  views  as  to  the  ultimate  objects  did  not 
interfere  with  the  general  active  support  of  the  cause. 

Q.  Was  there  a  popular  vote  upon  the  ordinance  of  secession  ? 

A.  Only  so  far  as  in  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  convention. 

Q.  There  was  no  subsequent  action  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  the  ordinance  of  secession  was  not  submitted  to  a 
popular  vote  afterward. 

Q.  Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  the  vote  it  would  have  received, 
as  compared  with  the  whole,  if  it  had  been  submitted  to  the  free 
action  of  the  people  ? 

Witness.  Do  you  mean  after  it  was  adopted  by  the  conven 
tion  ? 

Mr.  Boutwell.  Yes  ;  after  it  was  adopted  by  the  convention,  if 
it  had  been  submitted  forthwith,  or  within  a  reasonable  time. 

A.  Taking  the  then  state  of  things  into  consideration,  South 
Carolina,  Florida,  and  Mississippi,  I  think,  having  seceded,  my 
opinion  is  that  a  majority  of  the  people  would  have  ratified  it,  and 
perhaps  a  decided  or  large  majority.  If,  however,  South  Carolina 
and  the  other  States  had  not  adopted  their  ordinances  of  secession, 
I  am  very  well  satisfied  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Georgia, 
and  perhaps  a  very  decided  majority,  would  have  been  against 
secession  if  the  ordinance  had  been  submitted  to  them.  But  as 
matters  stood  at  the  time  if  the  ordinance  had  been  submitted  to 


822    TESTIMONY  BEFOKE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

a  popular  vote  of  the  State,  it  would  have  been  sustained.  That 
is  my  opinion  about  that  matter. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  of  the  Georgia  ordinance  ? 

A.  The  18th  or  19th ;  I  think  the  19th  of  January,  1861,  though 
I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  The  question  of  secession  was  involved  in  the  election  of 
delegates  to  that  convention,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  there  on  the  part  of  candidates  a  pretty  general 
avowal  of  opinions  ? 

A.  Yery  general. 

Q.  What  was  the  result  of  the  election  as  far  as  the  convention 
expressed  any  opinion  upon  the  question  of  secession  ? 

A.  I  think  the  majority  was  about  thirty  in  the  convention  in 
favor  of  secession.  I  do  not  recollect  the  exact  vote. 

Q.  In  a  convention  of  how  many  ? 

A.  In  a  convention  based  upon  the  number  of  senators  and 
members  of  the  House  in  the  general  assembly  of  the  State.  The 
exact  number  I  do  not  recollect,  but  I  think  it  was  near  three 
hundred,  perhaps  a  few  over  or  under. 

Q.  Was  there  any  difference  in  different  parts  of  the  State  in 
the  strength  of  Union  sentiment  at  that  time  ? 

A.  In  some  of  the  mountain  counties  the  Union  sentiment  was 
generally  prevalent.  The  cities,  towns,  and  villages  were  gener 
ally  for  secession  throughout  the  State,  I  think,  with  some  excep 
tions.  The  anti-secession  sentiment  was  more  general  in  the  ru 
ral  districts  and  in  the  mountain  portions  of  the  State ;  yet  the 
people  of  some  of  the  upper  counties  were  very  active  and  decided 
secessionists.  There  was  nothing  like  a  sectional  division  of  the 
State  at  all.  For  instance,  the  delegation  from  Floyd  county,  in 
which  the  city  of  Rome  is  situated,  in  the  upper  portion  of  the 
State,  was  an  able  one,  strong  for  secession,  while  the  county  of 
Jefferson,  down  in  the  interior  of  the  cotton  belt,  sent  one  of  the 
most  prominent  delegations  for  the  Union.  I  could  designate 
other  particular  counties  in  that  way  throughout  the  State,  show 
ing  that  there  was  not  what  might  be  termed  a  sectional  or  geogra 
phical  division  of  the  State  on  the  question. 

Q.  In  what  particular  did  the  people  believe  their  constitutional 
liberties  were  assailed  or  endangered  from  the  Union  ? 

A.  Mainly,  I  would  say,  in  their  internal  social  polity  and  their 
apprehension  from  the  general  consolidating  tendencies  of  the 
doctrines  and  principles  of  that  political  party  which  had  recently 
succeeded  in  the  choice  of  a  President  and  Yice-President  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  the  serious  apprehension  that  if  the  repub 
lican  organization,  as  then  constituted,  would  succeed  to  power, 
it  would  lead  ultimately  to  a  virtual  subversion  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  all  essential  guaranties  of  public  liberty. 
I  think  that  was  the  sincere  and  honest  conviction  in  the  minds 
of  our  people.  Those  who  opposed  secession  did  not  apprehend 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   823 

that  any  such  result  would  necessarily  follow  the  elections  which 
had  taken  place  ;  they  still  thought  that  all  their  rights  might  be 
maintained  in  the  Union  and  under  the  constitution,  especially  as 
there  were  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  who  agreed 
with  them  on  constitutional  questions. 

Q.  To  what  feature  of  their  internal  social  polity  did  they  appre 
hend  danger? 

A.  Principally  the  subordination  of  the  African  race  as  it  ex 
isted  under  their  laws  and  institutions. 

Q.  In  what  spirit  is  the  emancipation  of  slaves  received  by  the 
people  ? 

A.  Generally  it  is  acquiesced  in  and  accepted,  I  think,  in  per 
fect  good  faith,  and  with  a  disposition  to  do  the  best  that  can  be 
done  in  the  new  order  of  things  in  this  particular. 

Q.  What  at  present  are  the  relations  subsisting  between  the 
white  people  and  black  people,  especially  in  the  relation  of  em 
ployers  and  employed  ? 

A.  Quite  as  good,  I  think,  as  in  any  part  of  the  world  that  ever 
I  have  been  in,  between  like  classes  of  employers  and  employes. 
The  condition  of  things,  in  this  respect,  on  my  return  last  fall, 
was  very  different  from  what  it  was  when  I  left  home  for  my  pre 
sent  visit  to  this  city.  During  the  fall  and  up  to  the  close  of  the 
year,  there  was  a  general  opinion  prevailing  among  the  colored 
people  that  at  Christmas  there  would  be  a  division  of  the  lands, 
and  a  very  general  indisposition  on  their  part  to  make  any  con 
tracts  at  all  for  the  present  year.  Indeed,  there  were  very  few 
contracts,  I  think,  made  throughout  the  State  until  after  Christ 
mas,  or  about  the  1st  of  January.  General  Tillson,  who  is  at  the 
head  of  the  bureau  in  the  State,  and  whose  administration  has 
given  very  general  satisfaction  to  our  people,  I  think,  was  very 
active  in  disabusing  the  minds  of  the  colored  people  from  their 
error  in  this  particular.  He  visited  quite  a  number  of  places  in 
the  State,  and  addressed  large  audiences  of  colored  people,  and 
when  they  became  satisfied  they  were  laboring  under  a  mistake 
in  anticipating  a  division  of  lands  after  Christmas  and  the  1st  of 
January,  they  made  contracts  very  readily  generally,  and  since  that 
time  affairs  have,  in  the  main,  moved  on  quite  smoothly  and 
quietly. 

Q.  Are  the  negroes  generally  at  work  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  generally  at  work.  There  are  some 
idlers  ;  but  this  class  constitutes  but  a  small  proportion. 

Q.  What  upon  the  whole  has  been  their  conduct  ?  Proper  un 
der  the  circumstances  in  which  they  have  been  placed,  or  other 
wise? 

A.  As  a  whole,  much  better  than  the  most  hopeful  looked  for. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  what  are  the  leading  objects  and  desires 
of  the  negro  population  at  the  present  time  in  reference  to  them 
selves  ? 


TESTIMONY  BEFOEE  THE  KECONSTEUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

A.  It  is  to  be  protected  in  their  rights  of  persons  and  of  prop 
erty — to  be  dealt  by  fairly  and  justly. 

Q.  What,  if  any  thing,  has  been  done  by  the  legislature  of  your 
State  for  the  accomplishment  of  these  objects  ? 

A.  The  legislature  has  passed  an  act  of  which  the  following  is 
a  copy : 

"  [No.  90.] 

"  AN  ACT  to  define  the  term  '  persons  of  color,'  and  to  declare  the  rights 
of  such  persons. 

"  SEC.  1.  Be  it  enacted,  etc,,  That  all  negroes,  mulattoes,  mestizoes,  and 
their  descendants,  having  one  eighth  negro  or  African  blood  in  their 
veins,  shall  be  known  in  this  State,  as  '  persons  of  color." 

"Sec.  2.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  persons  of  color  shall  have  the 
right  to  make  and  enforce  contracts,  to  sue,  be  sued,  to  be  parties  and  give 
evidence,  to  inherit,  to  purchase,  and  to  have  full  and  equal  benefit  of  all 
laws  and  proceedings  for  the  security  of  person  and  estate,  and  shall  not 
be  subjected  to  any  other  or  different  punishment,  pain,  or  penalty  for 
the  commission  of  any  act  or  offence  than  such  as  are  prescribed  for  white 
persons  committing  like  acts  or  offences." 

The  third  section  of  this  act  simply  repeals  all  conflicting  laws. 
It  was  approved  by  the  governor  on  the  17th  of  March  last. 

Q.  Does  this  act  express  the  opinions  of  the  people,  and  will  it 
be  sustained ! 

A.  I  think  it  will  be  sustained  by  the  courts  as  well  as  by  public 
sentiment.  It  was  passed  by  the  present  legislature.  As  an  evi 
dence  of  the  tone  of  the  legislature  of  the  State,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  people  of  the  State  upon  this  subject,  I  will  refer  you  simply 
to  a  letter  I  wrote  to  Senator  Stewart  upon  the  same  subject.  I 
submit  to  you  a  copy  of  that  letter.  It  is  as  follows : 

"  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  April  4,  1866. 

"  DEAR  SIR  :  In  answer  to  your  inquiries  touching  the  sentiments  and 
feelings  of  the  people  of  Georgia  toward  the  freedmen,  and  the  legal 
status  of  this  class  of  population  in  the  State,  etc,  allow  me  briefly  to 
say  that  the  address  delivered  by  me  on  the  22d  of  February  last  before 
the  legislature  (a  copy  of  which  I  herewith  hand  you)  expresses  very 
fully  and  clearly  my  own  opinions  and  feelings  upon  the  subjects  of  your 
inquiry.  This  address  was  written  and  printed  as  you  now  see  it,  before 
its  delivery.  It  was  delivered  verbatim  as  you  now  read  it,  that  there 
might  be  no  mistake  about  it.  It  was  as  it  now  stands  unanimously  in 
dorsed  by  the  Senate  in  a  joint  resolution,  which  was  concurred  in  in  the 
House  without  dissent,  and  was  ordered  to  be  spread  upon  the  journals 
of  both  Houses.  This  I  refer  you  to  as  a  better  and  more  reliable  index 
of  the  feelings  and  views  of  the  people  of  the  State  on  this  subject  than 
any  bare  individual  opinion  I  might  entertain  or  express.  The  legislature 
of  the  State,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  is  as  correct  an  exponent  of  the  general 
feelings  and  views  of  the  State  upon  any  political  question  as  any  that 
can  be  obtained  from  any  quarter.  In  addition  to  this,  the  legislature 
subsequently  evinced  their  principles  by  their  works  in  passing  an  act, 
which  I  also  inclose  to  you.  This  act  speaks  for  itself.  It  is  short,  con 
cise,  pointed,  as  well  as  comprehensive.  It  secures  to  the  colored  race 
the  right  to  contract  and  to  enforce  contracts,  the  right  to  sue  and  to  be 


TESTIMONY  BEFOKE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.    825 

sued,  the  right  to  testify  in  the  courts,  subject  to  the  same  rules  that 
govern  the  testimony  of  whites,  and  it  subjects  them  to  the  same  punish 
ments  for  all  offences  as  the  whites.     In  these  respects,  embracing  all  es 
sential  civil  rights,  all  classes  in  Georgia  now  stand  equal  before  the  law. 
There  is  no  discrimination  in  these  particulars  on  account  of  race  or  color. 
u  Please  excuse  this  hasty  note  ;  I  have  no  time  to  go  more  in  detail. 
"Yours,  most  respectfully, 

"  ALEXANDER   H.  STEPHENS. 
"Hon.  WILLIAM  M.  STEWART,  United  States  Senate." 

Q.  What,  if  any  thing  is  being  done  in  Georgia  with  regard  to 
the  education  of  the  negroes,  either  children  or  adults  ? 

A.  Nothing  by  the  public  authorities  as  yet.  Schools  are  being 
established  in  many  portions  of  the  State,  under  the  auspices,  I 
think,  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  quite  a  number  by  the 
colored  people  themselves,  encouraged  by  the  whites. 

Q.  W7hat  disposition  do  the  negroes  manifest  in  regard  to  edu 
cation  ? 

A.  There  seems  to  be  a  very  great  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
children  and  younger  ones,  and  with  their  parents  to  have  them 
educated. 

Q.  What  is  the  present  legal  condition  of  those  who  have  lived 
together  as  husband  and  wife  ?  Do  the  laws  recognize  and  sus 
tain  the  relations  and  the  legitimacy  of  their  offspring  ? 

A.  Our  State  laws  do.  They  recognize  all  those  living  as  man 
and  wife  as  legally  man  and  wife.  A  good  man}T  of  them  took 
out  licenses,  and  were  married  in  the  usual  way.  There  is  no 
difference  in  our  laws  in  that  respect.  Licenses  are  issued  for 
white  and  black  alike,  only  they  are  prohibited  from  intermarry 
ing  with  each  other.  The  races  are  not  permitted  to  intermarry. 

Q.  Were  the  amendments  to  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
Georgia,  recently  adopted,  submitted  to  the  people  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  they  were  not  submitted.  I  have  no  hesitation, 
however,  in  expressing  the  opinion  that  nine  tenths  of  the  people 
would  have  voted  for  them  if  the  constitution  had  been  submitted. 
That  is  but  an  opinion.  I  heard  no  dissent  at  all  in  the  State. 
I  was  there  all  the  time.  I  got  home  before  the  convention  ad 
journed.  The  State  constitution,  as  made  by  the  convention, 
would  have  been  ratified  almost  without  opposition.  It  would 
have  been  ratified  nem.  con.  if  it  had  been  submitted.  This,  at 
least,  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  What  was  the  voting  population  of  your  State  in  1860? 

A.  Something  upward  of  a  hundred  thousand. 

Q.  What  is  probably  the  present  voting  population  ? 

A.  The  voting  population  of  the  State,  under  the  present  con 
stitution,  is  perhaps  eighty  thousand.  That  is  a  mere  estimate. 

Q.  Has  there  been  an}r  enumeration  of  the  losses  of  Georgia  in 
the  field,  in  the  military  service  ? 

A.  No  accurate  estimate  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  What  is  it  supposed  to  have  been  ? 


826    TESTIMONY  BE1-OKE  THE  KECONSTEUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  answer  the  question  with  any  thing  like 
accuracy. 

Q.  What  is  the  public  sentiment  of  Georgia  with  regard  to  the 
extension  of  the  right  of  voting  to  the  negroes  ? 

A.  The  general  opinion  in  the  State  is  very  much  averse  to  it. 

Q.  If  a  proposition  were  made  to  amend  the  constitution  so  as 
to  have  representation  in  Congress  based  upon  voters  substantial 
ly,  would  Georgia  ratify  such  a  proposed  amendment,  if  it  were 
made  a  condition  precedent  to  the  restoration  of  the  State  to 
political  power  in  the  government  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  they  would.  The  people  of  Georgia,  in  my 
judgment,  as  far  as  I  can  reflect  or  represent  their  opinions,  feel 
that  they  are  entitled  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
to  representation  without  any  further  condition  precedent.  They 
would  not  object  to  entertain,  discuss,  and  exchange  views  in 
the  common  councils  of  the  country  with  the  other  States  upon 
such  a  proposition,  or  any  proposition  to  amend  the  consti 
tution,  or  change  it  in  any  of  its  features,  and  they  would  abide 
by  any  such  change  if  made  as  the  constitution  provides  ;  but  they 
feel  that  they  are  constitutionally  entitled  to  be  heard  by  their 
senators  and  members  in  the  houses  of  Congress  upon  this  or  any 
other  proposed  amendment.  I  do  not  therefore  think  that  they 
would  ratify  that  amendment  suggested  as  a  condition  prece 
dent  to  her  being  admitted  to  representation  in  Congress.  Such, 
at  least,  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  It  is  then  your  opinion  that  at  present  the  people  of  Georgia 
would  neither  be  willing  to  extend  suffrage  to  the  negroes,  nor 
consent  to  the  exclusion  of  the  negroes  from  the  basis  of  repre 
sentation  ? 

A.  The  people  of  Georgia,  in  my  judgment,  are  perfectly  wil 
ling  to  leave  suffrage  and  the  basis  of  representation  where  the 
constitution  leaves  it.  They  look  upon  the  question  of  suffrage 
as  one  belonging  exclusively  to  the  States ;  one  over  which,  under 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  Congress  has  no  jurisdic 
tion,  power,  or  control,  except  in  proposing  amendments  to  the 
States,  and  not  in  exacting  them  from  them,  and  I  do  not  think, 
therefore,  that  the  people  of  that  State,  while  they  are  disposed, 
as  I  believe,  earnestly,  to  deal  fairly,  justly,  and  generously  with 
the  freedmen,  would  be  willing  to  consent  to  a  change  in  the  con 
stitution  that  would  give  Congress  jurisdiction  over  the  question 
of  suffrage.  And  especially  would  they  be  very  much  averse  to 
Congress  exercising  any  such  jurisdiction,  without  their  represen 
tatives  in  the  Senate  and  House  being  heard  in  the  public  council 
upon  this  question  that  so  vitally  concerns  their  internal  policy, 
as  well  as  the  internal  policy  of  all  the  States. 

Q.  If  the  proposition  were  to  be  submitted  to  Georgia  as  one 
of  the  eleven  States  latel}'  in  rebellion,  that  she  might  be  re 
stored  to  political  power  in  the  government  of  the  country  upon 
the  condition  precedent  that  she  should,  on  the  one  hand,  extend 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   827 

suffrage  to  the  negro,  or,  on  the  other,  consent  to  their  exclusion 
from  the  basis  of  representation,  would  she  accept  either  proposi 
tion  and  take  her  place  in  the  government  of  the  country  ? 

A.  I  can  only  give  my  opinion.  I  do  not  think  she  would  ac 
cept  either  as  a  condition  precedent  presented  by  Congress,  for 
they  do  not  believe  that  Congress  has  the  rightful  power  under 
thp  constitution  to  prescribe  such  a  condition.  If  Georgia  is  a 
State  in  the  Union,  her  people  feel  that  she  is  entitled  to  repre 
sentation  without  conditions  imposed  by  Congress.  And  if  she 
is  not  a  State  in  the  Union,  then  she  could  not  be  admitted  as  an 
equal  with  the  others  if  her  admission  were  trammelled  with  con 
ditions  that  do  not  apply  to  all  the  rest  alike.  General  universal 
suffrage  amongst  the  colored  people,  as  they  are  now  there,  would 
by  our  people  be  regarded  as  about  as  great  a  political  evil  as 
could  befall  them. 

Q.  If  the  proposition  were  to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage  to 
those  who  could  read,  and  to  those  who  had  served  in  the  Union 
armies,  would  that  modification  affect  the  action  of  the  State  ? 

A.  I  think  the  people  of  the  State  would  be  unwilling  to  do  more 
than  they  have  done  for  restoration.  Restricted  or  limited  suffrage 
would  not  be  so  objectionable  as  general  or  universal ;  but  it  is 
a  matter  that  belongs  to  the  State  to  regulate.  The  question  of 
suffrage,  whether  universal  or  restricted,  is  one  of  State  policy  ex- 
clusivety,  as  they  believe.  Individually  I  should  not  be  opposed 
to  a  proper  system  of  restricted  or  limited  suffrage  to  this  class 
of  our  population ;  but  in  my  judgment  it  is  a  matter  that  belongs 
of  constitutional  right  to  the  States  to  regulate  exclusively,  each 
for  itself.  But  the  people  of  that  State,  as  I  have  said,  would  not 
willingly,  I  think,  do  more  than  they  have  done  for  restoration. 
The  only  view  in  their  opinion  that  -could  possibly  justify  the  war 
which  was  carried  on  by  the  Federal  government  against  them 
was  the  idea  of  the  indissolubleness  of  the  Union — that  those  who 
held  the  administration  for  the  time  were  bound  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  laws  and  the  maintenance  of  the  integrity  of  the 
country  under  the  constitution ;  and  since  that  was  accomplished, 
since  those  who  had  assumed  the  contrary  principle — the  right  of 
secession,  and  the  reserved  sovereignty  of  the  States — had  aban 
doned  their  cause,  and  the  administration  here  was  successful  in 
maintaining  the  idea  upon  which  war  was  proclaimed  and  waged, 
and  the  only  view  in  which  they  supposed  it  could  be  justified  at 
all — when  that  was  accomplished,  I  say,  the  people  of  Georgia 
supposed  their  State  was  immediately  entitled  to  all  her  rights 
under  the  constitution.  That  is  my  opinion  of  the  sentiment  of 
the  people  of  Georgia,  and  I  do  not  think  they  would  be  willing 
to  do  any  thing  further  as  a  condition  precedent  to  their  being 
permitted  to  enjoy  the  full  measure  of  their  constitutional  rights. 
I  only  give  my  opinion  of  the  sentiment  of  the  people  at  this  time. 
They  expected  that  as  soon  as  the  confederate  cause  was  aban 
doned,  that  immediately  the  States  would  be  brought  back  into 


828    TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

their  practical  relations  with  the  government,  as  previously  con 
stituted.  That  is  what  they  looked  to.  They  expected  that  the 
State  would  immediately  have  their  representatives  in  the  Senate 
and  in  the  House,  and  they  expected  in  good  faith,  as  loyal  men, 
as  the  term  is  frequentty  used — I  mean  by  it  loyal  to  law,  order, 
and  the  constitution — to  support  the  government  under  the  con 
stitution.  That  was  their  feeling.  They  did  what  they  did,  be 
lieving  it  was  best  for  the  protection  o*f  constitutional  liberty. 
Toward  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  they  construed 
it,  the  great  mass  of  our  people  were  as  much  devoted  in  their 
feelings  as  any  people  ever  were  toward  any  cause.  This  is  my 
opinion.  As  I  remarked  before,  they  resorted  to  secession  with  a 
view  of  maintaining  more  securely  these  principles.  And  when 
they  found  they  were  not  successful  in  their  object,  in  perfect  good 
faith,  as  far  as  I  can  judge  from  meeting  with  them  and  convers 
ing  with  them,  looking  to  the  future  developments  of  their  coun 
try  in  its  material  resources,  as  well  as  its  moral  and  intellectual 
progress,  their  earnest  desire  and  expectation  was  to  allow  the 
past  struggle,  lamentable  as  it  was  in  its  results,  to  pass  by,  and 
to  co-operate  with  the  true  friends  of  the  constitution,  with  those 
of  all  sections  who  earnestly  desire  the  preservation  of  constitu 
tional  liberty,  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  government  in  its  pu 
rity.  They  have  been  a  little  disappointed  in  this,  and  are  so  now. 
They  are  patiently  waiting,  however,  and  believing  that  when  the 
passions  of  the  hour  have  passed  awa}^  this  delay  in  restoration 
will  cease.  They  think  they  have  done  every  thing  that  was  es 
sential  and  proper,  and  my  judgment  is  that  they  would  not  be 
willing  to  do  any  thing  further  as  a  condition  precedent.  They 
would  simply  remain  quiet  and  passive. 

Q.  Does  your  own  judgment  approve  the  view  you  have  given 
as  the  opinion  of  the  people  of  the  State  ? 

A.  My  own  judgment  is  very  decided  that  the  question  of  suf 
frage  is  one  that  belongs,  under  the  constitution — and  wisely  so, 
too — to  the  States  respectively  and  exclusively. 

Q.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  neither  of  the  alternatives  suggested 
in  the  question  ought  to  be  accepted  by  the  people  of  Georgia  ? 

A.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  these  terms  ought  not  to  be  offered 
as  conditions  precedent.  In  other  words,  my  opinion  is,  that  it 
would  be  best  for  the  peace,  harmony,  and  prosperity  of  the  whole 
country  that  there  should  be  an  immediate  restoration — an  imme 
diate  bringing  back  of  the  States  into  their  original  practical  rela 
tions — and  let  all  these  questions  then  be  discussed  in  common 
council.  Then  the  representatives  from  the  South  could  be  heard, 
and  you  and  all  could  judge  much  better  of  the  tone  and  temper 
of  the  people  than  you  could  from  the  opinions  given  by  any  in 
dividuals.  You  may  take  my  opinion,  or  the  opinion  of  any  indi 
vidual,  but  they  will  not  enable  you  to  judge  of  the  condition  of 
the  State  of  Georgia  so  well  as  for  her  own  representatives  to  be 
heard  in  your  public  councils  in  her  own  behalf  My  judgment, 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   829 

therefore,  is  ve^  decided  that  it  would  have  been  better,  as  soon 
as  the  lamentable  conflict  was  over,  when  the  people  of  the  South 
abandoned  their  cause  and  agreed  to  accept  the  issue — desiring, 
as  they  do,  to  resume  their  places  for  the  future  in  the  Union,  and 
to  look  to  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  courts  for  the  protection 
of  their  rights  in  the  Union — it  would  have  been  better  to  have 
allowed  that  result  to  follow,  under  the  policy  adopted  by  the  ad 
ministration,  than  to  delay  it  or  hinder  it  by  propositions  to 
amend  the  constitution  in  respect  to  suffrage  or  any  other  new 
matter.  I  think  the  people  of  all  the  southern  States  would,  in 
the  halls  of  Congress,  discuss  these  questions  calmly  and  de 
liberately  ;  and  if  they  did  not  show  that  the  views  they  enter 
tained  were  just  and  proper,  such  as  to  control  the  judgment  of 
the  people  of  the  other  sections  and  States,  they  would  quietly, 
patiently,  and  patriotically  yield  to  whatever  should  be  constitu 
tionally  determined  in  common  council.  But  I  think  they  feel 
very  sensitively  the  offer  to  them  of  propositions  to  accept,  while 
they  are  denied  all  voice  in  the  common  council  of  the  Union 
under  the  constitution  in  the  discussion  of  these  propositions.  I 
think  they  feel  very  sensitively  that  they  are  denied  the  right  to 
be  heard.  And  while,  as  I  have  said,  they  might  differ  among 
themselves  in  many  points  in  regard  to  suffrage,  they  would  not 
differ  upon  the  question  of  doing  any  thing  further  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  restoration.  And  in  respect  to  the  alternate  con 
ditions  to  be  so  presented,  I  do  not  think  they  would  accept  the 
one  or  the  other.  My  individual  general  views  as  to  the  proper 
course  to  be  pursued  in  respect  to  the  colored  people  are  expressed 
in  a  speech  made  before  the  Georgia  legislature,  referred  to  in  my 
letter  to  Senator  Stewart,  that  was  the  proper  forum,  as  I  con 
ceive,  in  which  to  discuss  this  subject.  And  I  think  a  great  deal 
depends  in  the  advancement  of  civilization  and  progress,  looking  to 
the  benefit  of  all  classes,  that  these  questions  should  be  consid 
ered  and  kept  before  the  proper  forum. 

Q.  Suppose  the  States  that  are  represented  in  Congress  and 
Congress  itself  should  be  of  the  opinion  that  Georgia  should  not 
be  permitted  to  take  its  place  in  the  government  of  the  country 
except  upon  its  assent  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  propositions 
suggested :  is  it  then  your  opinion  that  under  such  circumstances 
Georgia  ought  to  decline  ? 

Witness.  You  mean  the  States  now  represented,  and  those 
only  ? 

Mr.  Boutwell.  Yes. 

Witness.  You  mean  by  Congress,  Congress  as  it  is  now  con 
stituted,  with  the  other  eleven  States  excluded  ? 

Mr.  Boutwell.  I  do. 

Witness.  And  you  mean  the  same  alternative  proposition  to  be 
applied  to  all  the  eleven  States  as  conditions  precedent  to  their 
restoration  ? 

Mr.  Boutwell.  I  do. 


830   TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

A.  Then  I  think  she  ought  to  decline  under  the  circumstances, 
and  for  the  reasons  stated ;  and  so  ought  the  whole  eleven. 
Should  such  an  offer  be  made  and  declined,  and  these  States  should 
thus  continue  to  be  excluded  and  kept  out,  a  singular  spectacle 
would  be  presented.  A  complete  reversal  of  positions  would  be 
presented.  In  1861  these  States  thought  they  could  not  remain 
safely  in  the  Union  without  new  guaranties,  and  now,  when  they 
agree  to  resume  their  former  practical  relations  in  the  Union  un 
der  the  constitution  as  it  is,  the  other  States  turn  upon  them  and 
say  they  cannot  permit  them  to  do  so,  safely  to  their  interest, 
without  new  guaranties  on  their  part.  The  Southern  States  would 
thus  present  themselves  as  willing  for  immediate  Union  under  the 
constitution,  while  it  would  be  the  Northern  States  opposed  to  it. 
The  former  disunionists  would  thereby  become  unionists,  and  the 
former  unionists  the  practical  disunionists. 

Examination  of  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  resumed : 

By  Mr.  Boutwell: 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  in  your  last  answer  that  there 
is  no  constitutional  power  in  the  government,  as  at  present  organ 
ized,  to  exact  conditions  precedent  to  the  restoration  to  political 
power  of  the  eleven  States  that  have  been  in  rebellion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     That  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  the  same  opinion  in  reference  to  the  amend 
ment  to  the  constitution  abolishing  slavery  ? 

A.  I  do.  I  think  the  States,  however,  abolished  slavery  in  good 
faith,  as  one  of  the  results  of  the  war.  Their  ratification  of  the 
constitutional  amendment  followed  as  a  consequence.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  constitutional  power  on  the  part  of  the  govern 
ment  to  have  exacted  it  as  a  condition  precedent  to  their  restora 
tion  under  the  constitution,  or  to  the  resumption  of  their  places 
as  members  of  the  Union. 

Q.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  legal  value  of  the  laws  passed 
by  Congress  and  approved  by  the  President  in  the  absence  of 
senators  and  representatives  from  the  eleven  States  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  particular  law  you  refer  to  ;  but  my  an 
swer,  generally,  is,  that  the  validity  of  all  laws  depends  on  their 
constitutionality.  This  is  a  question  for  the  judiciary  to  deter 
mine.  My  own  judgment,  whatever  it  might  be,  would  have  to 
conform  to  the  judicial  determination  of  the  question.  It  is  a 
question  for  the  courts  to  determine. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  any  opinion  upon  that  question  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  formed  any  matured  opinion  in 
reference  to  any  particular  act  of  Congress  embraced  in  the  ques 
tion. 

Q.  Assume  that  Congress  shall  in  this  session,  in  the  absence 
of  senators  and  representatives  from  the  eleven  States,  pass  an 
act  levying  taxes  upon  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  includ 


TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   831 

ing  the  eleven :  is  it  your  opinion  that  such  an  act  would  be  con 
stitutional  ? 

A.  I  should  doubt  if  it  would  be.  It  would  certainly,  in  my 
opinion,  be  manifestly  unjust,  and  against  all  ideas  of  American 
representative  government.  Its  constitutionality  would,  however, 
be  a  question  for  the  judiciary  to  decide,  and  I  should  be  willing 
to  abide  by  that  decision,  whatever  it  might  be. 

Q.  If  the  eleven  States  have  at  present  an  immediate  constitu 
tional  right  to  be  represented  in  Congress  on  a  footing  with  the 
States  at  present  represented,  has  that  been  a  continuous  right 
from  the  formation*  of  the  government,  or  from  the  time  of  the  ad 
mission  of  the  new  States  respectively,  or  has  it  been  interrupted 
by  war  ? 

A.  I  think,  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  did  not  con 
sent  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  seceding  States,  it  was  a  continuous 
right  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  be  exercised 
so  soon  as  the  seceding  States  respectively  made  known  their 
readiness  to  resume  their  former  practical  relations  with  the 
federal  government,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
As  the  general  government  denied  the  right  of  secession,  I  do  not 
think  any  of  the  States  attempting  to  exercise  it  thereby  lost  any 
of  their  rights  under  the  constitution,  as  States,  when  their  people 
abandoned  that  attempt. 

Q.  Is  it  or  not  your  opinion  that  the  legislatures  and  people  of 
the  eleven  States,  respectively,  have  at  present  such  a  right  to 
elect  senators  and  representatives  to  Congress ;  that  it  may  be 
exercised  without  regard  to  the  part  which  persons  elected  may 
have  had  in  the  rebellion  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  they  could  exercise  that  right  in  the  choice 
of  their  senators  and  members,  so  as  to  impair  in  the  slightest 
degree  the  constitutional  right  of  each  House  for  itself  to  judge 
of  the  qualifications  of  those  who  might  be  chosen.  The  right  of 
the  constitutional  electors  of  a  State  to  choose,  and  the  right  of 
each  House  of  Congress  to  judge,  of  the  qualifications  of  those 
elected  to  their  respective  bodies,  are  very  distinct  and  different 
questions.  And  in  thus  judging  of  qualifications,  I  am  free  to 
admit  that  in  my  opinion  no  one  should  be  admitted  as  a  member 
of  either  House  of  Congress  who  is  not  really  and  truly  loyal  to 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  to  the  government 
established  by  it. 

Q.  State  whether  from  your  observation  the  events  of  the  war 
have  produced  any  change  in  the  public  mind  of  the  South  upon 
the  question  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  under  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

A.  That  question  I  answered  in  part  yesterday.  While  I  can 
not  state  from  personal  knowledge  to  what  extent  the  opinions  of 
the  southern  States  upon  the  abstract  question  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States  may  have  changed,  my  decided  opinion  is 


832   TESTIMONY  BEFOKE  THE  BECONSTBUCTION  COMMITTEE. 

that  a  very  thorough  change  has  taken  place  upon  the  practical 
policy  of  resorting  to  any  such  right. 

Q.  What  events  or  experience  of  the  war  have  contributed  to 
this  change  ? 

A.  First,  the  people  are  satisfied  that  a  resort  to  the  exercise 
of  this  right,  while  it  is  denied  by  the  federal  government,  will 
lead  to  war,  which  many  thought  before  the  late  attempted  seces 
sion  would  not  be  the  case ;  and  civil  wars  they  are  also  now  veiy 
well  satisfied  are  dangerous  to  liberty ;  and,  moreover,  their  expe 
rience  in  the  late  war  I  think  satisfied  them  that  it  greatly  endan 
gered  their  own.  I  allude  especially  to  the  suspension  of  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus,  the  militar}^  conscriptions,  the  proclamations 
of  martial  law  in  various  places,  general  impressments,  and  the 
levying  of  forced  contributions,  as  well  as  the  very  demoralizing 
effects  of  war  generally. 

Q.  When  were  you  last  a  member  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  ? 

A.  I  went  out  on  the  4th  of  March,  1859. 

Q.  Will  you  state,  if  not  indisposed  to  do  so,  the  considerations 
or  opinions  which  led  you  to  identify  yourself  with  the  rebellion 
so  far  as  to  accept  the  office  of  Vice-President  of  the  Confederate 
States  of  America,  so  called  ? 

A.  I  believed  thoroughly  in  the  reserved  sovereignty  of  the 
several  States  of  the  Union  under  the  compact  of  Union  or  con 
stitution  of  1187.  I  opposed  secession,  therefore,  as  a  question 
of  policy,  and  not  one  of  right  on  the  part  of  Georgia.  When  the 
State  seceded  against  my  judgment  and  vote,  I  thought  my  ulti 
mate  allegiance  was  due  to  her,  and  I  preferred  to  cast  my  fortunes 
and  destinies  with  hers  and  her  people,  rather  than  to  take  any 
other  course,  even  though  it  might  lead  to  my  sacrifice  and  her 
ruin.  In  accepting  position  under  the  new  order  of  things,  my 
sole  object  was  to  do  all  the  good  I  could  in  preserving  and  per 
petuating  the  principles  of  liberty,  as  established  under  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  If  the  Union  was  to  be  abandoned 
either  with  or  without  force — which  I  thought  a  very  impolitic 
measure — I  wished,  if  possible,  to  rescue,  preserve,  and  perpetu 
ate  the  principles  of  the  constitution.  This,  I  was  not  without 
hope,  might  be  done  in  the  new  confederacy  of  States  formed. 
When  the  conflict  arose,  my  efforts  were  directed  to  as  speedy 
and  peaceful  an  adjustment  of  the  questions  as  possible.  This  ad 
justment  I  always  thought  to  be  lasting, would  have  ultimately  to 
be  settled  upon  a  continental  basis,  founded  upon  the  principles  of 
mutual  convenience  and  reciprocal  advantage  on  the  part  of  the 
States,  on  which  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  origi 
nally  formed.  I  was  wedded  to  no  particular  plan  of  adjustment, 
except-  the  recognition,  as  a  basis,  of  the  separate  sovereignty  of 
the  several  States.  With  this  recognized  as  a  principle,  I  thought 
all  other  questions  of  difference  would  soon  adjust  themselves, 
according  to  the  best  interests,  peace,  welfare,  and  prosperity  of 


. 
TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.   833 

the  whole  country,  as  enlightened  reason,  calm  judgment,  and  a 
sense  of  justice  might  direct.  This  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  several  States  I  regarded  as  a  self-adjusting,  self-regulating 
principle  of  our  American  system  of  State  governments,  extend 
ing,  possibly,  over  the  continent. 

Q.  Have  your  opinions  undergone  any  change  since  the  open 
ing  of  the  rebellion  in  reference  to  the  reserved  rights  of  States 
under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ? 

A.  My  convictions  on  the  original  abstract  question  have  under 
gone  no  change,  but  I  accept  the  issues  of  the  war  and  the  result 
as  a  practical  settlement  of  that  question.  The  sword  was  ap 
pealed  to  to  decide  the  question,  and  by  the  decision  of  the  sword 
I  am  willing  to  abide. 
53 


THIS  BOOK  IS   DUE   ON   THE   LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


1  CD  LIBRARY 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-35m-7,'62(D296s4)458 


_______ 

Cleveland,  H 
Alexander  H.  Stephens 
public  &  private. 


Call  Number: 

EU67.1 

S85 

C6 


CkveUwcl 


SS5 
Gb 


263054 


